IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. G. SHANKAR A.S.No.73 of 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Y.R.P. Unit-III, Peddapuram .. Appellant AND Neeli Appalaswamy .. Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per. K.G. Shankar, J) The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram passed orders on 4-9-2000 in L.A.O.P.Nos.110, 111 and 112 of 1996 in respect of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in claims by three claimants. The lands in an extent of Ac.86.41 cents in various survey numbers in J. Annavaram village were acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre and also awarded solatium at 30%. He also awarded compensation of additional market value at 12%. The claimants in the three petitions were aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded and got the matters referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court. Before the Reference Court, the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.112 of 1996 was examined as PW.1. PW.2 was the vendor of Ex.A.1- Sale deed. On the strength of Exs.A.2, A.3 and A.4-certified copies of the judgments of the High Court in respect of the acquisitions of neighbouring lands, the reference Court determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry lands and at Rs.55,000/- per acre for wet lands. Not satisfied with the award of the Civil Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal. Heard Smt. A.B. Lalitha, learned Assistant Government Pleader and V. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The present appeal is in respect of L.A.O.P.No.112 of 1996 only out of 3 L.A.O.Ps disposed of jointly by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the value as determined by the reference Court is unjust and is not acceptable. It may be pointed out that the learned trial Judge placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ex.A.2 where the value of the property was determined at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land. In fact, the trial Court has no alternative but to determine the value of the property as determined by this Court in respect neighbouring lands. Where the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram relied upon a decision of this Court in determining the compensation payable to the claimant, the value as determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, cannot be assailed as incorrect. The value of the compensation as determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram deserves to be upheld. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, after he determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre and after awarding additional market value and solatium, however, did not grant interest over the additional market value and solatium in the light of the then prevailing view of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court subsequently considered that interest is payable on the additional market value and solatium also as much as over the main component of the compensation. The claimant/respondent, therefore, is entitled to the statutory benefit of interest over the solatium and additional market value also. The appeal otherwise is bound to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J ________________ K. G. SHANKAR, J Date: 23-12-2010 Ksn