THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR L.A.A.S.No.682 of 2004 And X.OBJ.(SR).No.34674 OF 2004 And L.A.A.S.No.1944 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) These two appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O), Guntur, directed against the common order dated 20.04.2001 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in O.P.Nos.49 & 50 of 1988, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. An extent of Ac.6.28 guntas of land each covered by O.P.No.49 of 1988 and O.P.No.50 of1988, belonging to the claimants was acquired for the purpose of providing protection bank to Peekalavagu under cyclone relief measures by publishing substance of the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in the A.P. Gazette, on 5.12.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry by publishing notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act, through Award No.1/1987 dated 8.03.1987 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. The claimants, having not satisfied with the fixation of market value, sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. On reference being made to the civil Court, the claimants appeared before the civil Court and filed their respective claim statements claiming the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, stating that the lands acquired in R. Agraharam are within the urban area of the municipal corporation and having close proximity with Srinivasaraothota and are having potential for being sold as house sites. The acquired lands are very fertile and capable of yielding commercial crops like cotton and chillies etc., and they used to get a net income of not less than Rs.8,000/- per acre.. Since the land was acquired by the same notification and covered by the same award, both the O.Ps. were clubbed together for joint enquiry and evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.49 of 1988. In order to prove the market value, RWs.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. On behalf of the referring officer, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A.1-Award was marked. The reference Court, after taking into consideration Ex.B.2-sale deed where 100 sq. yards of land in S.No.11 was sold @ Rs.69/- per sq. yard, and Ex.B.3-sale deed where 266 sq. yards of land was sold @ Rs.30 per sq. yard, held that on the date of notification, the value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, and after giving 20% deduction towards developmental charges, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.80,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits, but denied the interest on solatium. Questioning the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeals, whereas claimants in O.P.No.49 of 1988 preferred cross-objections seeking interest on solatium. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and also the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, who have taken us through the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned Government Pleader contended that the lower Court ought to have deducted 1/3 towards developmental charges instead of deducting 20%, since the sale deeds under Exs.B.2 and B.3 are covered by small extents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the deduction should be made only on yardage basis, but not on acreage basis. Though the claimants are entitled to more compensation, since they have not filed any cross- objections for want of payment of Court fee, the compensation fixed by the lower Court does not call for any interference. In the light of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is what is the true market value for which the claimants are entitled to. The evidence adduced by the claimants, who are examined as RWs.1 to 4 discloses that R. Agraharam is abutting to the residential locality of Sampath Nagar, and are situated within 2 kms. radious from the heart of Guntur city. R. Agaraharam is a well developed residential area, and there are residential houses abutting the acquired lands. RW.5, who is the scribe of Exs.B.2 and B.3 transactions, was examined to establish the genuineness of the transaction under the sale deeds. Ex.B.1 is the sketch of the location of acquired lands. Under Ex.B.2-sale deed an extent of 100 sq. yards in S.No.11 was sold @ Rs.69/- per sq. yard on 25.03.1981, whereas under Ex.B.3-slae deed an extent of 266 sq. yards was sold @ Rs.30/- per sq. yard. The Land Acquisition Officer also referred to the above sale transactions at Sl.Nos.6, 13 and 23 in his award, but discarded the same on the ground that the extent involved in all the cases are small and the transactions took place on the yardage basis and in the above sales each square yard fetched a rate ranging from Rs.10/- to Rs.30/-. But during the award enquiry, the land owners claimed compensation ranging from Rs.75,000/0 to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre without producing any documentary evidence in support of their claim. Hence their claims are rejected as baseless. There is no contra evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer to disprove the transactions under Exs.B.2 and B.3 under which small extents of land was sold nearly after 2 years 9 months prior to the issuance of notification, at Rs.69/- per sq. yard and Rs.30/- per sq. yard, which are situated within the vicinity of the acquired land, where residential houses are there. Having regard to the fact that the land has been developed into residential area and the sale was took place only on yardage basis at that stage, the same can always be taken into consideration in the absence of any sale deeds obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that the land was sold on acreage basis at a lesser amount. Even if the average of Rs.30/- is taken into consideration, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.1,45,200/- and if 1/3 i.e. Rs.48,400/- is deducted towards developmental charges, it would come to Rs.96,800/- per acre. Whereas the reference Court awarded only Rs.80,000/- per acre. In view of the same, fixation of market value at Rs.80,000/- per acre by the reference Court does not suffer from any manifest illegality and the same is in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the fixation of market value by the lower Court. Accordingly the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are dismissed. It is now well settled that the claimants are entitled to interest not only on the enhanced compensation, but also on the additional market value and solatium even without filing any cross-objections in appeal, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1]. Accordingly, we allow the cross-objections filed by the claimants holding that the claimants are entitled to additional market value @ 12% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification till the date of award or taking possession which ever is earlier, and 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of taking possession for a period of one year on the enhanced compensation including additional market value and solatium, and thereafter 15% p.a. till the realization. ___________________ (A. Gopal Reddy, J.) ___________________ (B. Chandra Kumar, J.) 15th September, 2009 Js. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516