IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. V. SEETHAPATHY A.S.NO. 1956 OF 2001 Between: Kondrothu Muniyya and five others ..... CLAIMANTS AND Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA) and two others .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Claimants are the appellants, who have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.P.No.40 of 1996 dated 27.10.2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac.88-65 cents in various survey numbers situated in the village of Yeleswaram was acquired for construction of spill way regulator in gap No.3 of Yeleru Reservoir at Yeleswaram vide notification published in the Gazettee dated 06.11.1981 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, awarded Rs.8,000/- per acre for the acquired land besides solatium and additional market value. Being dissatisfied with the Award, claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred and taken on file by the learned Senior Civil Judge in O.P.No.40 of 1996. The learned Senior Civil Judge upon appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Hence, this appeal. 3. In order to establish their claim, the appellants/claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and on behalf of referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and he got marked Ex.C.1, which is the protest application filed by the first claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre taking into consideration the evidence of PW.3, who was a claimant in O.P.No.291 of 1986 covered under Ex.A.3, wherein the Civil Court awarded compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre and the Government preferred an appeal No.1448 of 1989 before this Court against the said decree and judgment in Ex.A.3 and this Court dismissed that appeal filed by the Government, thus confirming the orders of the Civil Court, by it’s judgment dated 14.3.1990. The judgment of this Court in A.S.No.1448 of 1989 was got marked as Ex.A.4. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants- claimants and also the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants contended that the judgment and decree of the reference Court is unjust and the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/- as the value of the acquired land is more than 80,000/- per acre. He also contended that the reference Court erred in refusing compensation for structures such as bore well, well, shed etc. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SUNDER VS. UNION OF INAID[1], in support of his contention that the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium, wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 25 held as under: “ We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Smt Kailashwati and others-(AIR 1980 P AND H 117) (supra) ‘Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a land owner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorize the grant of interest on solatium as well.” 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respodent submits that after considering the nature of the land and market value at the time of notification, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the rate and the reference Court rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. As seen from the record, the land was acquired by the Government for construction of spill way regulator in gap No.3, Yeleswaram, and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.8,000/- per acre, and on reference, the reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,000/- basing on the evidence of PW.3, who was a claimant in O.P.No.291 of 1986 covered under Ex.A.3, wherein the Civil Court awarded compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. There, the Government also preferred an appeal in A.S.No.1448 of 1989 before this Court and this Court dismissed the same on merits confirming the order passed by the Civil Court in O.P.No.291 of 1986. The reference court also took into consideration Ex. A2, judgment in O.P.No. 110/85 under which Ac. 4.88 cents was acquired for RTC complex in Yeleswaram and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per acre was awarded as compensation, but the said judgment was not relied since the same was not confirmed by this Court and there is nothing on record that the land covered under Ex. A2 judgment has any connection with the land acquired. Therefore, the determination of the market value fixed by the reference Court is based on proper assessment. When once this Court has upheld the said fixation of market value, in the absence of any other material on record, we see no justification to interfere with the same. 9. As far as mango trees, coconut trees and two palmyrah trees are concerned, the commissioner is not assisted by an expert to assess the value of the trees. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to grant some amount to the trees viz., for one mango tree we grant Rs. 2,500/- per tree, and Rs. 2,500/- for each coconut tree and Rs. 25/- for each palmyrah trees . With regard to the well , we deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for well and for the cement structure. 10. In the circumstances, we hold that the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dated 27.10.2000 is modified to the extent indicated above. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits including interest on 30% solatium as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SUNDER VS. UNION OF INAID[2] (supra) . There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________​______ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 29th October, 2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC) [2] 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC)