IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1822 OF 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram … Appellant And Sankabathula venkatarao and four others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.1822 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”), by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram is filed questioning the enhancement of the compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in O.P.No.168 of 1990, dated 29.10.1999. An extent of Ac.4-34 cents of land situated in survey No.458/2 of J.Annavaram village belonging to the claimants was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 03.09.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry passed Award No.2/90, dated 15.02.1990 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. When there was a dispute in respect of the ownership of the acquired property the matter was referred to the civil court under Section 31(2) of the Act and the same was registered as O.P.No.168 of 1990. Subsequently, as per order passed in I.A.No.1042 of 1999 dated 30.04.1993, the reference under Section 18 of the Act was also included for determination and the claimants filed their claim statement for enhancement of the compensation. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimant, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.35 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked. The reference Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, observed that Ex.R3-copy of judgment in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 of this Court, dated 17.03.1998 shows that in J.Annavaram village Government acquired the land of one Palivela Lakshmi for the same purpose situated in J.Annavaram village and for the said land this Court fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land. Ex.R6-copy of the registered sale deed, dated 23.01.1986 shows that in Marriveedu village, which is an adjacent village of J.Annavaram, an extent of Ac.0-88 cents of dry land was sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The evidence of R.W.2, who was one of the vendee, also corroborated the sale transaction under Ex.R6. It was further observed that this Court in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 and batch, dated 26.02.1998 in respect of the land situated in Lakkavaram village belonging to one Thotakura Nookalamma and others, which was also acquired by the Government for the same purpose, fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- and upheld the genuineness of sale transaction under Ex.R6. Observing so, the reference Court after taking into consideration the proximity of the notification and since the lands acquired are contiguous to the lands covered by the judgments passed by this Court as referred to above, rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre for the entire extent of Ac.4-34 cents of land, which is a dry land, which in our considered view, is the true market value prevailing as on the date of issuance of notification. It is brought to our notice that the trial court denied the interest on Solatium and additional market value, but restricted the interest only on the enhanced compensation. It is now fairly well settled that even without filing any cross- objections, the claimants can seek interest on Solatium and additional market value, which forms part of the compensation. We accordingly award interest at 9% per annum from the date of notification i.e., 03.09.1987 for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment is made, on the enhanced compensation including additional market value and 30% Solatium as per the law laid down in Sunder v. Union of India {AIR 2001 SC 3516}. With the above observation, the appeal suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th June 2010 lmv