HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2286 OF 2010 DATE:25-06-2010 BETWEEN Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram. …Petitioner AND Uppalapati Appala Krishnamaraju …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2286 OF 2010 ORDER: The Land Acquisition Officer filed this revision questioning the orders of the executing Court made in E.P.No.149 of 2003 in O.P.No.24 of 1998, dated 25.8.2009. Heard the learned Government Pleader and S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder. The facts which are not in dispute are that on a reference being made to the Civil Court for due determination of the compensation in O.P.No.24 of 1998, the reference Court enhanced the compensation fixing at Rs.40,000/- per acre for Ac.3.88 cents and Ac.0.02 cents as against Rs.32,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also fixed Rs.50,000/- per acre for Ac.1.03 cents as against Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, but however, the reference Court denied the interest on 30% solatium and additional market value by its decree, dated 30.09.1999. Questioning the said enhancement of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer filed an appeal in A.S.No.2059 of 2000 and the same has been dismissed by this Court through judgment dated 11.2.2005 confirming the order of the reference Court but it was made clear that the claimant is entitled to the statutory benefits as per the entitlement. As on the said date, when the appeal has been dismissed, the law declared by the Supreme Court in V.Sunder v. Union of India[1] is applicable to the land acquisition proceedings namely, that the claimants are entitled not only to interest on the enhanced compensation but also on the solatium and the additional market value as the Supreme Court clarified that the expression of “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 23 including all the sub- sections thereto. If that be the case, the claimant-decree holder is entitled to interest not only on the enhanced compensation but also on the 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on such enhanced compensation. Since the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under all the heads has already been paid on passing the award and since the reference Court has denied the interest on 30% solatium and additional market value in compliance with the decree passed in the O.P., the Land Acquisition officer deposited Rs.6,96,443/- which forms part of enhanced compensation, 30% solatium and 12% additional market without calculating interest on the 30% solatium and additional market value. Therefore, the said amount has to be appropriated under different heads namely, towards the land value on the enhanced compensation, 30% solatium and 12% additional market value. If the same satisfies the decree, then the claimant-decree holder is entitled to interest alone on the 30% solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation. If the amount of Rs.6,96,443/- satisfies all the above heads, the claimant is entitled to claim interest on 30% solatium and 12% additional market value on it from the date of taking possession. The calculation memo filed by the claimant-decree holder along with the E.P. is not in tune with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd.[2] as confirmed by the Constitutional Bench in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India[3]. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower Court to receive the calculation memo afresh as indicated above and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of filing such calculation memo. The revision is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 25, 2010 Tsr. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516 [2] (1996) 2 SCC 71 [3] (2006) 8 SCC 457