THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NOS.444, 445, 415 AND 679 OF 2005 DATED 18TH JANUARY, 2011 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram. …Appellant/Referring Officer a n d Mothe Subrahmanyam …Respondent/Claimant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR L.A.A.S.NOS.444, 445, 415 AND 679 OF 2005 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) These four appeals arise out of the common Order and Decrees dated 12.10.2004 passed by the reference Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, in O.P.Nos.39, 40, 41 and 42 of 1995. By the said order, the reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.25,000/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre and granted interest to the claimants from the date of delivery of possession, a date anterior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, these appeals by the State. An extent of Ac.3.18 cents of land in R.S.No.68/1A of J.Annavaram Village of East Godavari District belonging to the respondents herein, the claimants in the four O.Ps., was acquired by the State for the purpose of providing house sites to Yeleru Reservoir Project displaced persons. The claimants in the four O.Ps. are brothers. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) was published on 18.11.1992. The possession of the land was however taken on 31.10.1988, four years prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, after due enquiry, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.25,000/- per acre vide his Award No.8/94 dated 20.12.1994. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined four witnesses and marked four documents while the State examined one witness and marked one document. The reference Court upon perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that the acquired land had house site potential. The claimants’ witnesses spoke to the effect that the acquired lands were used for raising wet crops like paddy, sugarcane, plantain and commercial crops like cotton, chilly, groundnut, etc. by using bore water. Therefore, though the lands were essentially dry lands, the claimants cultivated wet and dry crops thereon using bore well facility. Ex.R.1 marked by the claimants was the common Judgment dated 09.10.1998 in O.P.Nos.14, 15 and 50 of 1990 whereby the reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet lands acquired in J.Annavaram Village. Ex.R.3 was the order passed by this Court in A.S.No.104 of 1995, wherein this Court fixed the market value of the registered wet lands in J.Annavaram Village at Rs.55,000/- per acre. The reference Court, taking note of the fact that the land covered by Exs.R.1 and R.3 were wet lands whereas the subject lands were dry lands though utilized for raising wet crops, was of the opinion that their market value would have to be lesser than that of wet lands. It accordingly fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The reference Court however refused to grant separate compensation to the claimants for the bore well situated on their lands and also the standing crops which were allegedly existing at the time of the acquisition. It granted additional market value at 12% from the date of the notification along with 30% solatium on the enhanced amount. Given the aforestated facts, we find no infirmity in the exercise undertaken by the reference Court in so far as fixation of the market value of the land is concerned. As this Court had an occasion to fix the market value of the registered wet lands in J.Annavaram Village, the reference Court took the same as an indicium as to how the dry lands used for raising wet crops in the same village were to be evaluated and accordingly reduced the market value to Rs.50,000/- per acre. The reference Court however committed an error in granting interest at 9% per annum for the first year on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of realization. The payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act of 1894 is no doubt pegged to the date of taking possession of the acquired land but the scheme of the Act of 1894 does not contemplate taking over of the possession prior to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. That being so, the possession taken prior to the said notification may give rise to a claim for damages as per law, but cannot be validated by grant of interest under Section 34 from such date. The reference Court therefore ought not to have granted interest from 31.10.1988 when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued only on 18.11.1992. We therefore confirm the market value determined by the reference Court at Rs.50,000/- per acre. However, the interest awarded by the reference Court from the date of taking over of possession cannot be sustained. The common order dated 12.10.2004 shall accordingly stand modified to the extent of directing payment of interest at 9% per annum from 18.11.1992 for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of realization. The Appeals are accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM,J -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 18TH JANUARY, 2011. PGS