P.Thangavel, J.: These appeals are filed by Union India and the Referring Officer as appellants against the awards dated 24.1.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in L.A.O.P.Nos.38 of 1993 and 37 of 1993. 2. A.V.Subramanian, the claimant before the Reference Court is the owner of the land measuring 2 hectares 27 acres 93 Ca. in Ward No.G, Block-3 and T.S.No.9/2 in Keezhaveli village, Karaikal Commune and Taluk which was the subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993. 3. One Jayaraman, son of Varadarajan and Appar, son of Sokkalingam are the owners of hectare 72 acres 65 Ca in Ward No.3, Block-G and T.S.No.17/7 in Keezhaveli village, Karaikal Commune and Taluk which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993. 4. The Union of India, the first respondent through the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Collector (Revenue) Karaikal, the second respondent, before the Reference Court acquired the lands referred to above for the purpose of construction of a stadium to provide playground facilities to the students of schools and colleges at Karaikal by issuing a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act) on 26.12.1989 after getting the approval of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 14.12.1989 after following the procedure to be followed for acquisition of the lands under the Act. After considering the prices mentioned in some of the data sale deeds in sales statistics, the market value of the lands referred to above was fixed at Rs.2,550.00 per acre by the second respondent before the Reference Court apart from awarding necessary solatium and additional amount in Award No.2311/88-C4, dated 29.5.1992. While arriving at the market value the referring officer has treated the lands acquired as wet lands. The owners of the abovesaid lands who are claimants before the Reference Court claimed that the lands acquired are having potential value of house sites because of its location very close to Karaikal town and surrounded by housing colonies and therefore compensation has to be paid at Rs.5,000 per Kuzhi. In view of the abovesaid claim, the claimants referred to above wanted the matter to be referred to the Reference Court under Sec.18 of the Act and accordingly both the matters were referred to the Reference Court. 5. In view of the abovesaid claim, the claimants referred to above wanted the matter to be referred to the Reference Court under Sec.18 of the Act and accordingly both the matters were referred to the Reference Court. 5. The claimant, A.V. Subramanian was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on his side while R.W.1, P.I.Thomas, was examined on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on the side of the respondents in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993. Likewise, the second claimant, Appar, was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on the side of the claimants while P.I.Thomas was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the respondents in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993. After considering the material evidence available on record in both petitions referred to above separately, the Reference Court, namely, the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal fixed the market value of the lands of the claimants in both petitions referred to above at Rs.13,500 per acre, solatium of 30% and additional amount of 12% per annum along with interest as provided under Sec.28 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved at the awards dated 24.1.1994 and made in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and 37 of 1993 on the file of the Reference Court, the respondents 1 and 2 before the Reference Court, as appellants, have come forward with the appeals in A.S.No.583 of 1994 and 591 of 1994 on the file of this Court. 7. The respondent in A.S.No.583 of 1994 is the owner of the lands measuring 2 hectares 27 acres 93 Ca in Ward No.G, Block No.3 and T.S.No.9/2 in Keezhaveli village, Karaikal Commune and Taluk. Likewise the appellants Jayaraman and Appar are the owners of the lands in 0 Hectare 72 acres 65 Ca in Block No.G Ward No.3 and T.S.No.17/7 in Keezhaveli village and Karaikal Commune and Taluk. 8. Eventhough the lands owned by the abovesaid claimants are in different survey numbers, they are in one and the same Block and Ward number in Keezhaveli village Karaikal Commune and Taluk. 9. Admittedly, both the extents of the lands referred to above were acquired by the appellants herein by issuing a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act on 26.12.1989 for the purpose of construction of a stadium to provide playground facilities to the students of the schools and colleges at Karaikal. 9. Admittedly, both the extents of the lands referred to above were acquired by the appellants herein by issuing a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act on 26.12.1989 for the purpose of construction of a stadium to provide playground facilities to the students of the schools and colleges at Karaikal. The fact of constructing a stadium to provide playground facilities to the students of the schools and colleges at Karaikal would itself lend support to the contention of the claimants that the lands acquired are located very near to the town and also near the lands connecting junction of Thomas Arul Street, byepass road and also important government offices like administrative office, Court, General Hospital, Municipal Office, Schools and Colleges, surrounded by residential colonies like Bharathi Nagar extension, Joseph colony and Municipal Colony. R.W.1 himself had admitted in his evidence that the acquired lands are located near approved layout for housing plots even at the time of issue of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. If the location of the acquired lands, the purpose for which they were acquired and the admitted evidence of R.W.1 are taken into consideration, the contention of the claimants in each of the claim petitions that the lands acquired from them are situate in a residential locality with the existing advantages to get easy electricity connection, water supply and drainage, if the said lands are plotted out and sold as house sites, cannot be held as unreasonable one. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the lands acquired from the claimants referred to above are having potential value of house plots and it cannot be classified as wet lands for the purpose of fixing the market value. The same has to be sustained. It is also relevant to point out that Karaikal has been selected as one of the 100 towns in India to promote industrialisation. 10. The same has to be sustained. It is also relevant to point out that Karaikal has been selected as one of the 100 towns in India to promote industrialisation. 10. In Collector, Raigarh v. Dr.Harisingh Thakur and another, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 472, three Honourable Judges of the Apex Court has laid down the law with regard to the potential value of the land as follows: “The question as to whether a land has potential value as a building site or not is primarily one of fact depending upon several factors such as its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonable capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof”. The principle laid down in the case cited above would lend support to our conclusion that the lands acquired from the claimants referred to above are having potential value of house site and it cannot be classified as wet land to arrive at the market value. 11. A perusal of the documentary evidence available on record would disclose that P.W.1 A.V. Subramanian in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and his wife Bhavani are jointly doing real estate business by purchasing lands and selling the same after forming layouts for house sites. Ex.A-1 dated 14.3.1991 is a letter by the Planning Authority to P.W.1 in connection with such job. Ex.A-2 dated 17.10.1988 is a sale deed executed by P.W.1 in favour of one Rukmani. Ex.A-3 dated 17.10.1988 and Ex.A-1 dated 7.12.1988 are sale deeds executed by Bhavani, the wife of P.W.1 in favour of one Loganathan and Ramalingam respectively. P.W.1 is a party to the sale deed Ex.A-2 and can speak on behalf of his wife Bhavani with regard to Exs.A-3 and A-4. Ex.A-3 dated 17.10.1988 and Ex.A-1 dated 7.12.1988 are sale deeds executed by Bhavani, the wife of P.W.1 in favour of one Loganathan and Ramalingam respectively. P.W.1 is a party to the sale deed Ex.A-2 and can speak on behalf of his wife Bhavani with regard to Exs.A-3 and A-4. In view of the abovesaid position Exs.A-2 to A-4 can be safely relied upon to come to a conclusion with regard to the market value of the lands acquired subject to the other conditions to be taken note of, since the abovesaid sale transactions had taken place just about one year prior to the issue of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act dated 26.12.1989. Ex.A-5 dated 3.5.1989 is a sale deed executed by one Pattammal in favour of one Savarirajalu. The party to the abovesaid sale transaction has not been examined to prove the contents of Ex.A-5. 12. In L.A.O.P. No.37 of 1993 also, the claimants in the said petition has relied on Exs.A-2 to A-4 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 by marking the said documents as Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-1 respectively and relied on the abovesaid documents to arrive at the market value of the lands acquired from them apart from relying on Ex.A-4 dated 3.5.1989, the sale deed executed by one Pattammal in favour of Savarirajalu. The party to the abovesaid documents Ex.A-4 has not been examined in L.A.O.P.No. 37 of 1993 also. 13. The appellants who relied on the copies of sales statistics Ex.B-2 in both claim petitions to arrive at the market value, have not chosen to examine any of the sale transactions mentioned in Ex.B-2 to prove the genuineness of the transactions and passing of the considerations to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. Neither the award Ex.B-1 nor the sketch Ex.B-3 will help to arrive at the market value of the land acquired. The copy of sale deed Ex.B-4, dated 15.7.1988 executed by one Fathima Joharan alias Muthachi in favour of S.K.Pattammal and two others was relied on by the appellants. But the parties to the said document has also not been examined to prove the content and genuineness of the said documents. 14. The copy of sale deed Ex.B-4, dated 15.7.1988 executed by one Fathima Joharan alias Muthachi in favour of S.K.Pattammal and two others was relied on by the appellants. But the parties to the said document has also not been examined to prove the content and genuineness of the said documents. 14. In Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2625, the Honourable Judges of the Apex Court were pleased to hold as follows: “Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm’s length with throw away price; nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the Court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The Court is therefore, enjoined with the bounden duty of public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land and compulsory acquisition. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors.” 15. They are all relevant factors.” 15. In Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam v. Smt.Mangala Gowri, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 666, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to held as follows: "It is settled law by catena of decisions that the market value postulated in Sec.23(1) of the Act designed to award just and fair compensation for the lands acquired. The words "market value" would postulate price of the land prevailing on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1). This Court repeatedly laid the acid test that in determining the market value of the land, the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence, the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the data to assess the market value." 16. It has also been held by the Honourable Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and others v. Jasti Rohini (Smt.) and another, 1995 S.C.C. 717, that market value must be determined by reference to the price which a willing seller might reasonably expect from a willing purchaser at the time of issue of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. While determining the market value, the potential value of the land as a building site or otherwise on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act are also be taken into consideration. While determining the market value, the potential value of the land as a building site or otherwise on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act are also be taken into consideration. It is therefore evident from the decisions referred to above, while determining the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants referred to above, the potential value of the lands at the time of issue of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the willing seller might reasonably expect from a willing purchaser of the said land at the time of issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the evidence available with regard to the sale transaction in respect of the acquired lands to which the claimant himself is a party, the time at which the property comes to be sold, the purpose for which it is sold, the nature of consideration and the manner in which the transactions came to be bought out, should be taken as relevant factors. 17. In the light of the circumstances stated supra we are inclined to hold that the documents to which P.W.1, A.V.Subramanian and his wife Bhavani are parties are best piece of evidence to be taken into consideration, since the lands sold under the said documents one year prior to the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act were part of the lands acquired by the appellants herein for the purpose of construction of a stadium referred to above. 18. The learned Government Pleader contends that the lands sold under the abovesaid documents are pieces of lands while the lands acquired for the purpose of stadium is a large extent of lands and therefore, the abovesaid documents should not be looked into for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants who are respondents in the respective appeals. 19. In Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Smt. Sreelatha Bhoopal and another, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2552, the Honourable Judges of the Apex Court were pleased to hold as follows: "It is now well settled legal position that small pieces of land cannot offer the same market value when a large tracts of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. It is settled legal position that the Court has to put itself in the armchair of a prudent purchaser and put the question to itself whether the land in the given circumstances, would fetch the same market value as is likely to be determined by the Court when small piece of land would be offered for sale.“ 20. In The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari and others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 820, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows: ”When a large area of land under acquisition is the subject matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at which smaller plot or plots are sold. One aspect, which however, should weigh is, that determination of the value of large extents of acquired lands on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of determining the market value of acquired lands on the basis of comparable transactions of larger extents.“ 21. In State of J. & K. v. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others, (1998)6 S.C.C. 233 , the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that if the acquisition was a big chunk of land, sale instances of small area cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. 22. In K.Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (L.A.O.), (19995)5 S.C.C. 426, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows: ”When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land.“ The decision cited and relied on by the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would lead us to conclude that while determining the market value of large extent of acquired lands on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller pieces of lands, it must be a matter of last resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the comparable transactions of larger extent and that sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of lands. 23. 23. In Meharban v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2664, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows: ”Since none connected with the sale deeds was examined, the sale deeds are inadmissible in evidence though certified copies marked under Sec.51-A are available. So all the sale deeds stand excluded. It is the duty of the Court to take all the relevant factors into account before determination of the compensation.“ In A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P.Venkaiah, (1997)1 S.C.C. 128. has been followed. 24. In State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 564, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to held as follows: ”It is further settled law that the sales transactions filed either in the narration of award or documents, without examination of either the vendee or by the vendor is not evidence. It is the duty of the Court to carefully assess the evidence on the touch stone of human conduct and prudent purchaser. Admittedly, in this case, though reference to four sales transactions has been made by the Reference Court, neither the vendee nor the vendor was examined nor was it established that the sale consideration which passed thereunder is true and the prices for which the sales came to be executed were real one between willing vendor and willing vendee. Equally, burden is on the claimant to establish that the lands under acquisition are possessed of some value, nature of the lands are same and capable to fetch same price and so also other situations as comparable features... Equally, burden is on the claimant to establish that the lands under acquisition are possessed of some value, nature of the lands are same and capable to fetch same price and so also other situations as comparable features... It is equally settled law that the Courts should avoid feats of imaginations to fix fanciful price, and sit in the armchair of willing vendee to see whether a prudent purchaser acting in normal market condition would be willing to offer the price which are mentioned in the sale instances." The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases cited above would lend support to our conclusion that unless parties to the sale deeds are examined, such documents are inadmissible in evidence even though certified copies are marked under Sec.51-A of the Act and that the sale deeds which are mentioned in the sales statistic and considered in the award, will have no value when the parties to the documents referred to therein are not examined before Court to establish that the sale consideration passed under the said transaction is true, that the price for which the sale deed came to be executed, was real one between the willing vendor and the willing vendee and that the lands under acquisition are possessed of same view. 25. Therefore, the appellants as well as the respondents cannot place reliance on the sale deed Ex.A-5, dated 3.5.1989 executed between Savarirajalu and Pattammal and also Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-4. 26. In Pal Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 225, the Honourable Apex Court consisting three three Honourable Judges, was pleased to hold that a market value of the land can be determined relying on a judgment of a Court on two conditions, namely, (1) it must have been a previous judgment of that Court, and (2) it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliune that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, which could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. The respondents in each of the appeals have relied on the copy of the order in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1990 on the file of the said Court (marked as Ex.A-6 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and Ex.A-5 in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993 on the file of the said Court). The respondents in each of the appeals have relied on the copy of the order in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1990 on the file of the said Court (marked as Ex.A-6 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and Ex.A-5 in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993 on the file of the said Court). There is no acceptable evidence on the side of the respondents to comply with the second condition imposed by the Honourable Apex Court and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the abovesaid copy of order also to determine the market value of the lands in dispute, in these appeals. 27. The learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) has brought to the notice of this Court, the decision reported in P.S.Krishna and Company (P) Ltd. v. The Land Acquisition Officer (Deputy Collector), Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 421 in support of his contention. In that case, notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was issued on 12.1.1973 and modified notification was again issued on 27.7.1978 for acquiring 26 acres and 26 gunthas. In addition to that 2 acres and 29 gunthas were also acquired by issue of a third notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act on 10.6.1982. The prices of the land went up after 1980 in that area i.e., after issue of modified notification on 27.7.1978. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was with a gap of about two years. It is under the said circumstances, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that valuation of the land after 1980 when admittedly, there was rise in price, cannot form the basis as guide line value and deduction of one-fifth of the value should be made towards development charges to arrive at the market value. That is not the position in this case and therefore, the decision referred to above may not be of much help to the appellants in this case. 28. The learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) brought to the notice of this Court the decision reported in K.S.Srivadevamma v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996)2 S.C.C. 62 , to establish that considerable percentage has to be deducted to arrive at the market value of the land acquired for construction of a stadium. In this case certain lands were acquired for being handed over to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities. In this case certain lands were acquired for being handed over to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.5,000 per acre and on reference, the civil Court by its award and decree dated 30.10.1984 determined the compensation at Rs.30,000 per Acre. In the appeal filed against the said award on the file of the High Court, the High Court was pleased to determine the compensation after giving deduction of 53% at Rs.18 per square yard by its judgment and decree dated 19.8.1992. This was questioned by filing an appeal by Special leave to the Honourable Apex Court. While considering the contention raised on behalf of the claimant with regard to deduction of 53%, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that the extent of deduction for development charges depends upon development needed in each case and not automatic. The decision referred to above will lead us to conclude that while arriving at the market value, the deduction should be made and it depends upon the development to be made in such case and it is not automatic. 29. The Reference Court, while arriving at the market value, based its conclusion on the market value of the land relying on the sale deed executed by Pattammal in favour of Savarirajulu on 3.5.1989 as seen in Ex.A-5 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and Ex.A-4 in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993. In view of the decisions referred to above, the abovesaid document has to be excluded from evidence as it is inadmissible in evidence for want of examining parties to the document to prove the contents of the said document and also its genuineness and other factors. In view of the said position alone, the market value arrived at by the Reference Court relying on the said document at Rs.13,500 per acre has to be set aside. But the fact remains that the sale deeds executed by P.W.1 in L.A.O.P No.38 of 1993 and his wife are marked as Exs.A-2 to A-4 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993. Of course, the sale transactions are with regard to a small extent of land when larger extent of lands were acquired for construction of stadium. Of course, the sale transactions are with regard to a small extent of land when larger extent of lands were acquired for construction of stadium. It is evident from a perusal of records that the lands covered under Exs.A-2 to A-4 in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 in L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993 were sold at the rate of Rs.8,987.34 per acre and Rs.11,695 per acre with a gap of two months in between. The highest price that the land fetched one year earlier to the date of notification can be taken into consideration in the light of the price fetched by similar land two months thereafter. The land covered under the latter sale deed was sold at Rs.11,695 per acre. The average sale price of such sale transactions will work out to Rs.10,341 per acre. The acquisition of the demised lands were for construction of a stadium to use it as play ground for the students studying in schools and colleges at Karaikal. Various housing colonies and important government offices are situated near and around the lands acquired for the said purpose as mentioned above. Other facilities like electricity, water, drainage, etc. can be obtained without any difficulty as they are available just around the lands acquired. There may not be much expenditure for laying of road to develop that area because of its location and the nature of construction to be put up therein. 30. In view of the said position deducting 33 1/3% towards development charges out of the value per acre will meet the ends of justice. If that be so, it will work out to Rs.6,894 which can be rounded of to Rs.7,000 per acre. Accordingly, the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants in both the petitions, who are the respondents in both appeals, is fixed at Rs.7,000 per acre. 31. In fine, the market value of the lands under acquisition and subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993 are fixed at Rs.7,000 (Rupees Seven thousand only) per acre. It is clarified that the claimants in both the claim petitions are entitled to solatium of 30 per cent on the market value of the land. 31. In fine, the market value of the lands under acquisition and subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.38 of 1993 and L.A.O.P.No.37 of 1993 are fixed at Rs.7,000 (Rupees Seven thousand only) per acre. It is clarified that the claimants in both the claim petitions are entitled to solatium of 30 per cent on the market value of the land. It is further clarified that the claimants in both the petitions are entitled to additional amount at 12 per cent per annum from the date of issue of Sec.4(1) notification till the date of passing of award or taking possession of the lands acquired whichever is earlier. The claimants in both the petitions are entitled to interest at 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands and thereafter at 15 per cent per annum till the date of deposit of the amount in Court. It is further clarified that the question whether interest is payable on solatium or not has been referred to a larger Bench of the Honourable Apex Court due to divergent views expressed therein and therefore, the claimants can approach the Court below for payment of interest on solatium in the event of the Honourable Apex Court holding in favour of the claimants with regard to the payment of interest on solatium. In the circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.