THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.672 and 755 OF 1998 Dated. 23-12-2010 Between: Nagaiah and others .…Appellants Vs. Government of A.P., rep. by Spl.Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Singoor Project, Sangareddy ....Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.672 and 755 OF 1998 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) Both appeals arise out of the common order dated 03-04-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P.Nos.153 of 1991 and 694 of 1995 filed by the claimants seeking for further enhancement of the compensation. A.S.No.672 of 1998 arises out of the judgment in O.P.No.153 of 1991 and AS No.755 of 1998 is against the judgment in O.P.No.694 of 1995. A total extent of Ac.41.25 guntas of land was proposed to be acquired at Makhta Kyasaram village which comes under the sub- mergence under Singoor Project. A draft notification was issued and published on 15-10-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an enquiry passed the award on 30-09-1989 fixing the market value at Rs.10,500/- per dry B.C land and Rs.11000/- per single crop wet land besides all statutory benefits and the value of the wells. The claimants were not satisfied with the above award and sought a reference to the court claiming that the market value of the acquired lands is from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre and they were getting annual income of Rs.2,500/- per acre and accordingly they pleaded for enhancement for the lands and also the value of the wells. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-12. On behalf of the Government RWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge fixed the market value at Rs.15,000/- per acre for dry B.C land and Rs.15,500/- per single crop wet land with statutory benefits. The appellants were not satisfied with it and claiming a compensation of Rs.20,000/- per acre, the appeals were filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned District Judge is real and sustainable? (2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any further enhancement? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- While considering the claim of the claimants, who are in the position of the plaintiffs, it is evidently for them to prove the potentialities of the acquired land. PW.1 who was claimant No.4 in O.P.No.153 of 1991 claiming income from cash crops and other claimants also claimed that the land is fertile and they are getting good yield. The claimants also relied upon Ex.A-1 which is a sale deed for Rs.20,000/- per acre by examining PW.3 and also relied upon Ex.A-10 and the evidence of PW.5. The claimants therefore relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-12 and out of them Exs.A-1, A-10 and A-11 are the sale transactions. The Commissioner’s report was also relied upon. The claimants further relied upon a judgment under Ex.A-12 in AS.No.3397 of 1992 whereunder this court pertaining to the lands at Narayanapally, hamlet of Hasnabad Village of Raikode Mandal of Medak District, had fixed the market value at Rs.16,500/-. The learned District Judge also took into consideration that pertaining to earlier acquisition in O.P.No.512 of 1987 the District Judge had granted compensation of Rs.6,000/- per acre for B.C land and Rs.7,600/- per acre for single crop wet land. However, the learned District Judge relying on the evidence of PWS.3, 6, and Pw.7 and Exs.A- 1, A10 and Ex.A-11 and the proximity of the sale transaction arrived at the compensation of Rs.15,000/- per acre for dry B.C land and Rs.15,500/- for single crop wet land. The learned District Judge also took into consideration the fact that the lands under Ex.A-12 though belonging to different village is relevant but it cannot be taken as a relevant for fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/-. The learned District Judge has given sufficient reasons for enhancement of the compensation relying on the documents. The appellants could not show as to how the market value arrived at by the learned District Judge is on a lower level, ignoring the location or the potentialities. The documents relied on by the appellants were taken into consideration and they formed the basis of the award by the lower court. Therefore, we find no reason to accept the contention of the appellants that the lower court has ignored the real potential value and should have ground Rs.20,000/- per acre. Consequently, we hold that the market value fixed by the learned District Judge does not call for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly arrived at the valuation of the wells. The lower court in para.6 of its judgment, has clearly found that there cannot be any separate value for the wells. The estimates were taken as proper and did not wish to interfere with the assessment. Even otherwise, except the interested evidence of PW.2, which difficult to be accepted, there is no other material. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the claim of the appellants for further enhancement is rejected. 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 interest keeping in view of the judgment reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]). Accordingly, the order of the lower court is modified to the extent indicated above. The points are accordingly answered. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part with modification of the award granting interest on solatium and additional market value which was not granted by the lower court. The market value fixed with regard to the acquired lands is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23-12-2010 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).