THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1140 OF 2002 Between: The Collector, Vizianagaram …Appellant Vs. B.Appala Swamy and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.1140 OF 2002 JUDGMENT (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili in O.P.No.74 of 1988 enhancing the market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre against the amount of Rs.4,500/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. An extent of Ac.2.27 cents of dry land was acquired in Dibbaguddivalasa, hamlet of Patha Bobbili of Bobbili Mandal for providing houses to the weaker sections and a notification was given in February 1987 and an award enquiry was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.4,500/- per acre and as the claimants were not satisfied with the market value, the reference was made to the court. The claimants contended that in the neighbouring areas, the property was sold in 1986 at Rs.12,500/- per acre and the lands are potential and fertile and they are entitled to the compensation at Rs.30,000/- per acre. On behalf of the claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 11-08-1986. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,500/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are:- (1) Whether the enhancement of the market value by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? (2) To what relief? POINTS:- In order to prove the claim, claimant No.7 was examined as PW.1 and according to him one Bhaskara Rao purchased the land in Sy.No.50/4 of an extent of Ac.1.04 for Rs.12,500/- which was adjacent to the acquired land on the East and the sale was under Ex.A-1 and the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not correct. PW.2 deposed that he sold the land under Ex.A-1 for consideration of Rs.12,500/- to one Bhaskara Rao and the land adjoins his land and the land under acquisition has got potentiality. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, M.R.O was examined. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the land sold under Ex.A-1 is close to the acquired land and it has got potentialities and the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not proper. The learned Senior Civil Judge has placed reliance on the sale deed under Ex.A-1 and enhanced the compensation which was at Rs.12,500/-. Evidently, the acquisition was in the year 1987 and an award was passed in 1988. There is no proof of any manipulation of sale deed under Ex.A-1 and PW.2 has deposed about the receipt of consideration. Hence the reasons given by the learned Senior Civil Judge in relying upon Ex.A-1 cannot be faulted and the enhancement granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge cannot be also interfered. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge has granted 12% additional market value and 30% of solatium but however, declined to grant the interest on the above components. 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 at Rs.12,000/-per acre. 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 20 -1-2011 TSNR [1] 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC).