IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH 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.41 of 2002 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Y.R.P. Unit-III, Peddapuram .. Appellant AND Pilli Chittemma .. Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per. K.G. Shankar, J) The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram passed order on 2-9- 2000 in L.A.O.P.No.185 of 1996 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the claim by the claimant. Various lands in East Godavari District and Visakhapatnam District were acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project including as many as Ac.89.74 cents in various survey numbers in J. Annavaram village. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.20,640/- per acre for wet land, Rs.18,000/- per acre for dry land with wet crops and Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry land with dry crops. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the owners of the property got their claims referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, passed common order in L.A.O.P.Nos.234, 235, 236 and 185 of 1996 on the file of his Court. He determined the market value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/-per acre for dry land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land. The order of the reference Court in O.P.No.185 of 1996 enhancing the market value of the acquired property to Rs.50,000/- per acre is questioned through the present appeal. Heard Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Appeals. None represented the respondent-claimant. The Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by different Division Benches of this Court in A.S.Nos.2913 of 1996 and 2733 of 1996, which were exhibited as Exs.R.2 and R.3 before the trial Court. In those two cases, the question arose regarding the market value of the acquired property. The acquired property in those cases was in J. Annavaram village and neighbouring villages. This Court determined the market value of the lands at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land in those cases. Admittedly, the lands under acquisition in the present case located in J. Annavaram village are of the same potency as the lands in the cases covered by Exs.R.2 and R.3. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, therefore, was correct in determining the market value of the wet land in the present case at Rs.50,000/- per acre. The judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, does not need any interference. However, a point of clarification may be given at this stage. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, while awarding compensation through the impugned judgment, held that the claimant was entitled to compensation at Rs.50,000/- per acre and also is entitled to compensation on additional market value and solatium. He further held that the claimant was entitled to interest over the market value of the acquired property. The reference Court considered that the claimant was not entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium on the basis of the view of the Supreme Court at that point of time. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held in Sundar v. Union of India[1] that a claimant under the Land Acquisition Act would be entitled to interest over additional market value and solatium also, apart from interest over the enhanced market value. The interest over additional market value and solatium being statutory rights, the claimant is entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium also at the same scale at which he is entitled to interest over the market value of the acquired property. The main relief sought for by the Government is found to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed subject to the observation that the claimant is entitled to interest over the market value, additional market value as well as solatium. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J ________________ K. G. SHANKAR, J Date: 29-12-2010 Ksn [1] 2001 (5) ALD 136