THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.654 OF 1998 Dated. 23 -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy …Appellant Vs. Panduranga Rao son of Kishan Rao and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.654 of 1998 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.671 of 1989 on the file of the court of District Judge, Sanga Reddy whereunder the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.30,267/-. An extent of Ac.4.00 of land belonging to the claimants in Sy.No.719 and 720 of Kandi Village was acquired for the purpose of grain market yard and notification was given on 15- 10-1985 and award enquiry was conducted and possession was taken after payment of compensation on 14-10-1988. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ Rs.11,160/- and at the objections of the claimants, the matter was referred to the civil court. The claimants contended that they are entitled to the market value at Rs.10/- per square yard and also claimed that the market value towards the trees and structures were not given. Therefore, the matter came up for consideration before the lower Court. On behalf of the claimants PWS.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge granted the compensation @ Rs.30,267/- per acre. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value arrived at by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- The learned Government Pleader for Appeals contends that there is no material to support the enhancement. As can be seen from the order of the lower court, the award clearly shows that the lands in Sy.No.577/A, 578/AA was purchased for house sites @ Rs.48,400/- per acre under the sale deed dated 26-05-1984. The lower court also took into consideration the evidence of PWS.1 and 2 and Ex.A-1 whereunder an extent of Ac.50 cents of land said to have been sold for Rs.24,200/- which is said to be a furlong away from the acquired lands and adjacent to the village. The lower court on verification of Ex.A-1 found that it reflects only a sale of Ac.0.50 guntas of land for consideration of Rs.24,200/- and not Ac.1.00 cents of land as deposed by PW.2. But, however, the lower court found that the land sold under Ex.A-1 is about one year prior to the notification and also took into consideration the fact that the acquired land is surrounded by houses and village, abuts the road and also took into consideration that the acquired land is fit for grain market construction and being surrounded by houses. Therefore, basing on Ex.A-1 as reflecting the real market value the learned Senior Civil Judge after making a deduction of 1/3rd fixed the market value at Rs.30,267/- and rejected the other claims of the claimant towards trees etc. we do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion on the reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge and the fixation of the market value cannot be faulted. The learned Senior Civil Judge has not granted additional market value on the ground that the possession was taken after payment of compensation. It is not clear as to whether the possession was after the declaration of the notification or the award of the Collector. Sub-section 1-A of Section 23 of the Act is as follows:- “(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, which ever is earlier. Explanation:- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.” If the requirements of Section 23-1A of the Act are not followed, there is no reason to deny the benefit for the additional market value which is considered as also a component of the compensation as the market value. Therefore if the claimants apply the court shall consider the same. However, as can be seen from the judgment of the lower court, the appellants were not paid interest on solatium which is a statutory benefit. Therefore, they are entitled to and keeping in view of the judgment reported in Accordingly, the order of the lower court is modified to the extent indicated above. The points are accordingly answered. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with the modification of the award of the lower court granting interest on the solatium which was not granted by the lower court. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23 -12-2010 TSNR