HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S. No.1060 OF 2000 Dated: 16-04-2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Mandal Revenue Officer), Tallada, Khammam District. Appellant AND Ailuri Swarajyamma Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S. No.1060 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, dated 30.01.1999 made in O.P.No.31 of 1989 whereby the market value for the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.3.02 gts. of dry land in Sy.No.131/2 belonged to the claimant-respondent herein situated at Ramanujavaram village, Tallada Mandal was acquired by Government for providing house sites to scheduled castes and other weaker sections of society by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published in the Gazette on 25.11.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting due enquiry and after obtaining necessary sale statistics, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre. The claimant having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, filed application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the civil Court for due determination of the market value of the acquired land. On reference being made, the claimant appeared before the reference Court and filed claim statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.62,000/- per acre. In order to substantiate the market value of the acquired land, the claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and got examined one more witness as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1 sale deed. On behalf of the referring officer, M.R.O. was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of award was marked as Ex.B.1. According to the claimant-P.W.1, she used to raise commercial crops like chillies, cotton, groundnut etc., and used to get net income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per acre, per annum. Under Ex.A.1-sale deed, dated 22.4.1985, a piece of land to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts. situated in Vengannapeta Village, which is just 3 K.Ms. away from Ramanujavaram Village was sold at Rs.20,000/- which works out to Rs.40,000/- per acre. To prove the sale transaction covered by Ex.A.1-sale deed, the claimant got examined the purchaser thereunder as P.W.2. Inasmuch as the land covered by Ex.A.1-sale deed is situated in different village, the reference Court has rightly not taken into consideration Ex.A.1 as a comparable sale for fixation of the market value of the acquired land. However, in the award, the Land Acquisition Officer grouped the lands and also observed that commercial crops like mirchi, groundnut, green-gram, red-gram etc. were grown in the acquired land and also considering the sale statistic at serial No.1, wherein land in Sy.No.128-A, 129, to an extent of Ac.3.02 gts., which is just adjacent to the acquired land, was sold on 15.7.1983 for an amount of Rs.45,000/- i.e. approximately Rs.15,000/- per acre, he fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000/- per acre. Since there is a time gap of 2 years 4 months between the sale deed on which reliance was placed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the present notification, the reference Court after giving necessary escalation, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per acre, but however, denied the interest, solatium and additional market value. It is now accepted for adding interest component for subsequent years, if there is a time gap between the sale deed on which reliance is placed by the Land Acquisition officer to the date of notification, and 10% escalation as such can be given for the time gap keeping in view of the price escalation year-after-year. That apart, from the award itself it is evident that the claimant used to raise commercial crops like chillies, red-gram, green-gram etc. Therefore, the fixation of the market value by the reference Court at Rs.20,000/- per acre is just and reasonable compensation. But however, the reference Court is not justified in denying the interest on the additional market value and also on solatium in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1]. In the result, while dismissing the appeal we make it clear that the claimants are entitled to interest not only on the enhanced compensation but also on 12% additional market value and solatium. The claimants are entitled to 12% additional market value from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of passing of award i.e. 31.3.1987 and interest t 9% per annum from 1.4.1987 for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till realization. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 16, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr. [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516