HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.Nos.1205 of 2002, 2647 of 2003, 2652 of 2003 and 635 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram disposed of L.A.O.P.Nos.216 of 1996, 218 of 1996, 221 of 1996 and 222 of 1996 and four other cases through a common order dated 16.02.2001. These appeals are by the State in respect of L.A.O.P.Nos.216, 218, 221 and 222 of 1996. As common questions of fact and law arose in all the appeals, they are being disposed of through this common order. 2. The lands in J.Annavaram village were acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Yeleru Reservoir Project, for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project. The lands of the claimants in the above referred cases were also acquired along with the lands of several other formers. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.8 of 1989 on 28.02.1989 determining the market value of the property at different rates for different categories of land and primarily the value was determined at Rs.18,000/- per acre for dry-cum-wet land, at Rs.12,000/- per acre for dry land and at Rs.4,300/- per acre for uncultivable lands. The claimants, who are the respondents herein and others, were not satisfied with the awarded amount. On their request, reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the cases came before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 3. The learned Senior Civil Judge determined the value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land through the impugned order. The Government preferred the present appeals contending that the value as determined by the reference Court is unjust and is on the higher side. 4. Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Appeals and Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing the claimants appeared and advanced their submissions. 5. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined two witnesses as PWs 1 and 2. The Land Acquisition Officer examined the Junior Assistant of the R.D.O’s office as R.W.1. However, the relevance is documentary evidence on the basis of which the impugned common order was passed by the reference Court. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the judgment in A.S.No.2913 of 1996, which is a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. It relates to properties acquired for Yeleru Reservoir Project in various villages, which are adjoining J.Annavaram in which village the properties in the present case are located. The Division Bench of this Court determined the market value of dry lands of this locality at Rs.40,000/- per acre. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram adopted the same as admittedly the lands covered in A.S.No.2913 of 1996 on the file of this Court and the lands in the present case are situate in neighbouring and adjoining villages and are of similar potency. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, therefore, was justified in determining the market value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre as they were dry lands. 6. The learned Government Pleader’s contention that the value arrived at by the reference Court is not proper and is not just cannot be accepted where the reference Court based its decision on an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ex.A.1. The valuation of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for the dry land therefore, is perfectly justified and deserves to be confirmed. There are no merits in the batch of this appeals. The appeals therefore deserves to be dismissed. 7. It may be pointed out that when the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram determine the market value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre, he granted additional market value and solatium to the claimants but declined to grant interest on additional market value and solatium as the then prevailing view of the Supreme Court was that interest is not payable on additional market value and solatium. However, the Supreme Court took the view in Sunder v Union of India[1] that a claimant whose lands are acquired is not only entitled to market value of the acquired property, additional market value and solatium, but also entitled to interest over the market value as well as additional market value and solatium. This is a statutory benefit. The claimants are not liable to be deprived of the statutory benefit. The claimants, therefore, are entitled to the statutory benefit of interest over not only the market value of the acquired property, but also on the additional market value and solatium thereon. 8. With this observation, the appeals are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 29th December, 2010. PNV [1] 2001(5) ALD 136