IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. NO. 2340 OF 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nizamabad. ..... Appellant (Respondent in Cross Objections) AND Vutla Gangaram (died) and others .....Respondents/ Cross Objectors The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) questioning the order and decree dated 18.01.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P.No.356 of 1993 while the cross objections are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the market value to Rs.30,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.22.25 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.1458, 1459/1 and 2 of Padkal village, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad District belonging to the respondents – cross objectors was acquired by Government for the purpose of construction of Police Firing Range by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 4.6.1992 and possession of the land was taken over on 27.7.1988 and after conducting an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, Ex.A-1 on 05.05.1993 determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with such determination of the market value, the claimants sought reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1.00 lakh per acre or Rs.20/- per Sq. yard. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sec.18 of the Act. On behalf of the respondents – claimant before the Reference Court, the claimant No.5 was examined as RW1 apart from examining three others as RWs. 2 to 4 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. On behalf of the Appellant, Land Acquisition Officer, none were examined but copy of the Award was marked as Ex. A- 1. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.20,000/- per acre apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the claimants filed Cross Objections claiming market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Heard learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that though Ex.B-1 is executed prior to the date of notification, yet the same is for a smaller extent of land and as such, it cannot be taken as criteria for determination of just and reasonable market value of the land for larger tract as in the present acquisition and, hence, the same has to be ignored as it is not a comparable sales for arriving at the market value. Per contra, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents – claimants that the sale under Ex.B-1 dated 9.7.1984 reflects the correct market value inasmuch as the same is from out of the same Sy. No. 1459. He also contends that Ex.B-2 also is a comparable sale for determination of the just and reasonable market value in respect of the acquired land. He also contends that the trial court ought to have given allowance over and above the rate mentioned in Exs.B1 and B-2 for the time lag between the date of notification and the date of sales thereunder. As can be seen from the evidence of RW-2, he purchased an extent of Ac.1.02 guntas in Sy. No. 1459 for Rs.40,000/- under Ex.B-1 copy of the registered sale deed dated 9.7.1984. He further deposed that under Ex.B-2, copy of the sale registered sale deed dated 14.7.1994, he sold an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas of land for Rs.19,000/- and the lands under Exs.B-1 and B-2 have the same potentiality as that of the acquired lands. An extent of Ac.1.02 guntas of land in Sy.No. 1459 of Padkal Village of Jakranpally Mandal, Nizamabad district was sold by RW-1 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the original of Ex.B-1 dated 9.7.1984. Admittedly, a part of the land is also acquired in the said Sy. No.1459. The date of notification in the present case is 4.6.1992 and possession of the acquired land was taken on 27.7.1988. Thus there is a time lag of four years in between Ex.B-1 and the date of taking possession, inasmuch as Ex.B-1 is four years anterior to the date of possession in the present case. Considering the fact that the sale under Ex.B-1 was for a small extent of Ac.1.02 guntas only whereas the present acquisition is for a larger extent and having regard to the time lag between Ex.B-1 and the date of taking possession, we feel it just and proper to enhance the market value of the acquired land from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre, which is the claim of the claimants in the Cross Objections. The Reference Court has observed that the claimants are entitled to benefit under Sec.23(1A) of the Act i.e. additional market value at 12% from the date of taking possession i.e. 27.7.1988 till the date of award. It is a settled principle of law that the claimants are entitled to the benefit under Sec.23(1A) of the Act at 12% from the date of notification i.e. 4.6.1992 and not from the date of taking possession. Hence, we modify the award granting additional market value under Sec. 23(1A) of the Act from the date of notification i.e. 4.6.1992 instead of 27.7.1988 till the date of award, as decreed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court while granting interest component, has observed that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the decision Sunder Vs. Union of India ([1]). The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced market value, solaitum and additional market value. Thus with the modification in the order and decree, enhancing the market value from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre, awarding interest at the rates granted by the Reference Court from the date of notification and awarding additional market value at 12% from the date of notification i.e. 4.6.1992, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the claimants – respondent in the appeal stands allowed. No order as to cost. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao April 28, 2011 MAS. [1] (2007)7 SCC 211