HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.28050 & 27810 of 2010 Date : 1-11-2011 W.P.No.28050/2010 Between : Ravuri Ramanaidu (died) Represented by his Legal Representative Venkataiah Naidu and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Irrigation & Command area Development, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: -- Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioners have made applications before respondent No.3 for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874 (for short "the Act") in terms of Judgment and decree dated 29-4-1987 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet (for short “the Civil Court”) in L.A.O.P.Nos.9/1986 and batch. Respondent No.3, having considered the said applications passed an award on 10-4-2006 redetermining the compensation on the basis of the above mentioned Judgment of the Civil Court. In these Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that while making such redetermination, respondent No.3 has not awarded interest on solatium and additional market value. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that since the Civil Court has not awarded interest on the solatium and additional market value, the same has not been awarded in favour of the petitioners. It is also averred that the petitioners are not entitled to additional benefits over and above what have been received by the petitioners in L.A.O.P.Nos.9/1986 and batch. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the Judgment and decree of the Civil Court in the above mentioned L.A.O.Ps. shows that while enhancing the compensation, it has awarded solatium @ 30% and additional market value @ 12%. It has also awarded interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period. Even though the Judgment and decree is not very clear as to whether interest is awarded on solatium and additional market value, it is the specific case of the respondents that the land owners who obtained the decree from the Civil Court were not paid the interest on solatium and additional market value in view of the law which was in force at that time. At the hearing, it is not disputed that till the Constitution Bench in Sundar Vs. Union of India[1] has held that interest is payable on the solatium and additional market value also, the Civil Courts were awarding the interest only on the enhanced compensation excluding solatium and additional market value. Admittedly, the L.A.O.Ps. were disposed of much prior to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundar (1 supra). In the absence of specific stipulation in the decree, the respondents are stated to have construed the said decree as awarding the interest on the enhanced compensation amount excluding the solatium and additional market value. This plea of the respondents is not denied by the petitioners. When the decree holders in the above mentioned L.A.O.Ps. themselves were not paid the interest on solatium and additional market value, the petitioners who are seeking redetermination of compensation on the basis of the said decree, cannot be placed in a more advantageous position than the decree holders themselves. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel WPMP Nos.35768/2010 and 325478/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 1-11-2011 AM [1] (2001) 7 SCC 211