THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2540 OF 2000 Dated. 23 -12-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram …Appellant Vs. Allakki Venkataramaiah Choultry, Peddapuram ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2540 of 2000 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the Act”) enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs.38,720/- per acre to Rs.25/- per square yard. An extent of Ac.0.58 cents of land in Town S.No.905/2 of Peddapuram village belonging to the claimant-Choultry, which was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Telephone Exchange and staff quarters and notification was given on 15-03-1979 and possession was taken on 29-08-1980 and the Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an award enquiry fixed the market value for which the claimant did not accept and accordingly the reference was made to the Court. According to the claim of the claimant, the acquired land is in the heart of Peddapuram town and adjacent by several houses and government offices and the Deputy Secretary to Government, Endowment Department has recommended the market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per square yard, which was not taken into consideration. There are some trees and structures which were also not taken into consideration. Hence the claimant pleaded for enhancement. On behalf of the claimant, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2, Exs.X-1 to X-4 and Ex.C-1. On behalf of the referring officer, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge fixed the market value @ Rs.25/- per square yard. 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) Whether the order of the lower court requires any interference? (3) To what relief? POINTS:- While fixing the market value, the court has to take into consideration the location of the land, the potentialities, its utility and also the proximity under the purpose of acquisition. Evidently, the purpose of acquisition is for construction of a Telephone Exchange and quarters which are being constructed in the town area. The lower court has taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner under Ex.C- 1 and who was examined as RW.3, which discloses that the acquired land is at a distance of 100 yards from Municipal office; 150 yards from the Luthern High School and very close to the revenue offices and there are several houses. Therefore, the court failed that there was potentiality. The lower court also took into consideration the recommendations of the Deputy Secretary, Endowments under Ex.R-2 seeking for Rs.25/- per square yard for the acquired land. In fact, the purpose of establishment of a Choultry is said to be feed to poor students and to have a Kalyanamandapam. The lower court took into consideration the need of Choultry to have the funds and also has taken into consideration that the land being in a developed area no further deductions need be made and when the Deputy Secretary to Government itself recommended @ Rs.25/- per square yard, we find there is no reason to discard the price. At any rate, the Land Acquisition Officer could not substantiate the reasons for rejection of the same. Therefore, we do not find any reason to discard the valuation fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which appears to be reasonable keeping in view the potentialities and the recommendations of the Government itself. However, The learned Senior Civil Judge has disallowed the interest on solatium which is not correct in view of the fact that it is also a part of the compensation and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]) Therefore, while confirming the award of the lower court, since the statutory benefits are denied to the claimant, it is ordered that the claimant is entitled to all the statutory benefits including the interest on solatium etc., which was denied. Accordingly, the points are answered. With the above modification the Appeal Suit is dismissed. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 23-12-2010 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).