IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.2610 OF 2000 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram … Appellant And Pasala Mangarao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.2610 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”), by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Peddapuram is filed questioning the enhancement of the compensation made by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in O.P.No.171 of 1990, dated 19.07.1999. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are an extent of Ac.0-08 cents in survey No.472, Ac.1-97 cents in survey No.473, Ac.1-48 cents in survey No.474 and an extent of Ac.1-73 cents in survey No.464, in all Ac.5-26 cents of J.Annavaram village belonging to the claimants were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Yeleru Reservoir Project by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 02.09.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry passed Award No.8/90, dated 15.02.1990 fixing the market value of the entire extents of acquired lands at Rs.1,36,001/-. When there were disputes in respect of the ownership of the acquired property, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Act and the same was registered as O.P.No.171 of 1990. Subsequently, as per orders passed in I.A.No.180 of 1991, dated 26.02.1993, the reference was converted from Section 31(2) of the Act to Section 18 of the Act and the claimants filed their claim statement for enhancement of the compensation. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the claimant, RWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the referring officer. The reference Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, observed that Ex.R1-registration extract of sale deed, dated 23.01.1986, show that one Pericherla Jagannadharaju of Marriveedu village sold an extent of Ac.0-88 cents of dry land for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The evidence of R.W.4, who was the vendee under Ex.R1, also corroborated the sale transaction under Ex.R1. Ex.R3 – registration extract of the sale deed, dated 02.06.1988 show that one Edala Janikiramayya sold an extent of Ac.0-50 cents of dry land situated in J.Annavaram village for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- to one Nemani Subbarao. R.W.3, who was the vendee under Ex.R3, deposed that Government acquired the land mentioned under Ex.R3 also and the Land acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.18,000/- per acre for the said land and when the matter was referred to Sub-Court, Peddapuram vide O.P.No.15 of 1990, the Sub-Court, Peddapuram fixed the market value of the land mentioned in Ex.R3 at Rs.55,000/- per acre. R.W.1, who is the 1st claimant, deposed that for the lands of one Vagu Satyanarayanamurthy of J.Annavaram village, which were acquired by the Government for the same purpose, the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in O.P.No.73 of 1992, dated 30.08.1994, fixed the market value at Rs.60,000/- per acre and when the Government preferred appeal, this court modified the same and fixed the market value at Rs.55,500/- per acre. He further deposed that the Government also acquired the lands of Vagu Buli Yellam Raju and others situated in J.Annavaram village for the same purpose and for those lands this Court in A.S.No.972 of 1996 and batch, dated 20.02.1998 fixed the market value at Rs.55,000/- per acre for wet land. The said evidence of R.W.1 is supported by Ex.R5 – copy of the decree and order in O.P.No.73 of 1992, dated 30.08.1994 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and Ex.R6 – copy of the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.972 of 1996 and batch, dated 20.02.1998. It was further observed that this Court in A.S.No.2913 of 1996, dated 17.03.1998 in respect of the land situated in J.Annavaram village belonging to one Palivela Lakshmi, which was also acquired by the Government for the same purpose, fixed the market value at Rs.40,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs.55,000/- per acre for wet land and that for the lands situated in Lakkavaram village belonging to one Thotakura Nookalamma and others, which was also acquired by the Government for the same purpose, this Court in A.S.No.2733 of 1996 and batch, dated 26.02.1998 fixed the market value at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Observing so, the reference Court after taking into consideration the proximity of the notification and since the lands acquired are contiguous to the lands covered by the judgments passed by this Court as referred to above, rightly fixed the market value of the land situated in survey No.472 to an extent of Ac.0-08 cents at Rs.40,000/- per acre, for the land situated in survey No.473 to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents at Rs.50,000/- per acre and for an extent of Ac.1-47 cents at Rs.40,000/- per acre, for the land situated in survey No.474 to an extent of Ac.1-48 cents at Rs.40,000/- per acre and for the land situated in survey No.464 to an extent of Ac.1- 73 cents at Rs.50,000/- per acre, which in our considered view, is the true market value prevailing as on the date of issuance of notification. It is brought to our notice that the trial court denied the interest on Solatium and additional market value, but restricted the interest only on the enhanced compensation. It is now fairly well settled that even without filing any cross- objections, the claimants can seek interest on Solatium and additional market value, which forms part of the compensation. We accordingly award interest at 9% per annum from the date of notification i.e., 02.09.1987 for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the payment is made, on the enhanced compensation including additional market value and 30% Solatium as per the law laid down in Sunder v. Union of India {AIR 2001 SC 3516}. With the above observation, the appeal suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th June 2010 lmv