THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2277 OF 2001 Dated. 25-02-2011 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram …Appellant Vs. K.Ramachandram and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.2277 OF 2001 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) The Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31-08-2000 in O.P.No.226 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. An extent of Ac.86.41 cents of land in various survey numbers was acquired in J.Annavaram village for submersion under Yeluru Reservoir Project. The appellants herein are owners of Ac.0.62 cents of wet land and Ac.0.73 cents of dry land. The present O.P was tried along with three other O.Ps. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted an award enquiry and passed an award on 03-01-1989 and the claimants were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence the reference. The claimants contended that the value of the trees was not given; the lands are fertile and the market value of the acquired land will be about Rs.2 lakhs per acre by the date of notification. The claimants were also getting good income. The classification of the land as wet and dry is not correct. After the reference on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and marked Exs.R-1 to R-4. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? 2. To what relief? POINTS: The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the wet land at Rs.22,640/- and whereas for the dry land it was fixed at Rs.12,000/-. From the evidence of RW.1 and also the Land Acquisition Officer, the court found that wet crops raised in all the lands irrespective of the classification. The learned Senior Civil Judge relied upon Exs.R-2 and R- 3 which are judgments of the High Court in A.S.Nos.2913 of 1996 and 2733 of 1996 whereunder for the lands acquired for Yeleru project the market value was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre. In the above judgments, Ex.B-1 sale deed was accepted and market value was fixed at Rs.50,000/- per acre. It was also noted that J.Annavaram, Lakkavaram, Marriveedu and Ramanayyapeta are adjacent villages, in fact Ex.R-2 judgment relates to the lands at J.Annavaram which are also the lands under acquisition. Therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge taking into the purpose of acquisition and basing on the judgment of the High Court for similar acquisition in the same village has enhanced the compensation which cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge in enhancing the compensation. The learned Judge has also granted the incidental and statutory benefits under the Act and denied the interest on solatium and additional market value. In view of the decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India([1]), the claimants will be entitled to the interest on the solatium and additional market value along with the compensation. Therefore, with the above modification the award has to be confirmed. Therefore, the Appeal Suit is allowed in part while confirming the enhancement of the compensation. Since the learned Senior Civil Judge has not granted interest on solatium and additional market value, which are the statutory benefits, the claimants are found to be entitled and it shall be paid by the lower court accordingly. No order as to costs ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).