HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No. 2317 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer acquired vast extent of lands in East Godavari District for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project. Lands of an extent of Acs.90.69 cents of J.Annavaram village were the subject matter of acquisition for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project. The lands admeasuring Ac.2.40 cents belonging to the claimants are the subject matter of the present case. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation @ Rs.18,000/- per acre for the acquired land apart from additional market value and solatium. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants got their claim referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value of the acquired property. The case came up before the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. While Government supported the valuation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought for the enhancement of the value of the acquired lands at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for the wet land. They based their claim on earlier judgments of this Court in A.S.Nos.2913 and 2733 of 1996, which were marked before the reference Court as Exs.A.4 and A.5. Relying upon Exs.A.4 and A.5, the reference Court determined the market value of the property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for the dry land and at Rs.50,000/- per acre for the wet land. Impugning the same, Government preferred the present appeal. Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the appellant and Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents appeared and advanced their submissions. As pointed out, vast extent of lands of J.Annavaram and surrounding villages was acquired by the Government for Yeleru Reservoir Project. Several owners of land raised disputes before the Civil Courts regarding the compensation that was awarded to them for the acquisition of their lands. Two such cases came up before different Division Benches of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Through the judgments in A.S.Nos.2913 and 2733 of 1996 marked as Exs.A.4 and A.5 before the reference Court, the Division Benches of the High Court considered that the value of the property was Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for wet land. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram relied upon these two decisions and determined the value of the acquired property at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry lands and at Rs.50,000/- per acre for the wet lands and awarded compensation. However, the reference Court did not award interest over additional market value and solatium as the then prevailing view of the Supreme Court was that the claimants were not entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium. Where the reference Court determined the market value of the acquired property on the basis of earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court and where the properties referred to in the judgments of the High Court and properties in the present case are situated in neighbouring villages and admittedly of similar potential value, the reference Court is perfectly justified in awarding compensation determining the market value as determined by the High Court in the judgments referred to above. The finding of the reference Court cannot be considered to be unjust or improper. The value as determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram therefore deserves to be upheld. This appeal is liable to be dismissed. It may however be pointed out that after the disposal of the reference by the reference Court, the Supreme Court held in Sunder v Union of India[1] that a claimant under the Land Acquisition Act would be entitled to interest over the additional market value and solatium apart from interest over the market value of the acquired property. As interest over additional market value and solatium is a statutory benefit, the claimants are entitled to the same even in this case. With reference to the merits of the case, where the reference Court determined the valuation of the property by following earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court, the finding of the reference Court is found to be correct. The appeal consequently is found to be devoid of merit and the same therefore is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J ________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J 29th December, 2010. PNV [1] 2001(5) ALD 136