Judgment : The above appeal suit is directed against the Order dated 31.7.1986 made in L.A.O.P. No.293 of 1982 by the Court of Reference and Subordinate Judge, Vellore. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, representing the Government as against the enhancement of the land value to Rs.37,500 per Hectare by the reference court from Rs.5,500 per hectare for unirrigated dry land and Rs.11,000 per hectare for irrigated dry land as fixed by the L.A.O., praying thereby to set aside the said award passed by the Court of Reference. 3. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that an extent of 1,39.5 hectare of land belonging to the respondent/ claimant situated in Mukundarayapuram village of Ranipet Taluk in the North Arcot District has been acquired for the purpose of establishing Boiler Auxiliaries Project of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited at Ranipet. The publication of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made on 30.1.1981. The LAO, having considered the value of the land and also having a comparative study of the lands in question with the data lands which were sold out recently in and around the same areas, had fixed the value of the unirrigated dry and irrigated dry lands at Rs.5,500 and Rs.11,000 per hectare respectively. 4. Ona reference made under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court of Reference held a full enquiry, in which, the claimant himself has been examined as P.W.1 and one Ravichandran has been examined as P.W.2, and one Pandurangan (LAO) has been examined as R.W.1 on the part of the L.A.O., for oral evidence. For documentary evidence, five documents have been marked on the part of the claimant as Exs.A-1 to A-5 and A-12 documents have been marked on the part of the Referring Officer as Exs.B-1 to B-12. 5. In consideration of these evidence placed on record, the Court of reference having had its own discussion on the facts and circumstances of the case as pleaded by parties, and in consideration of the evidence made available, would ultimately fix the value of the land acquired in this case at Rs.375 per acre, i.e., Rs.37,500 per hectare. The point noted here is that the Court of Reference did not at all make any distinction of the lands acquired from one another. 6. The point noted here is that the Court of Reference did not at all make any distinction of the lands acquired from one another. 6. Aggrieved, the Government have preferred the above appeal on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of memorandum of appeal. 7. In the above circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the Court of Reference has erred in enhancing the compensation amount of the land from Rs.5500 and Rs.11,000 per hectare respectively for the unirrigated dry and the irrigated dry lands to Rs.37,500 per hectare, and if so, whether the award passed by the Court of reference is liable to be set aside? 8. In consideration of the pleadings by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what comes to be known is that the land in question has been acquired for the BHEL, which is the requisitioning body, and the L.A.O., in his own assessment of the value of the land in comparison with the data sale deeds, has fixed their value at Rs.5,500 per hectare towards the unirrigated dry land and Rs.11,000 per hectare for the irrigated dry land, whereas, the claim before the lower Court is Rs.2000 per cent. In consideration of the evidence placed on record by the claimant and the LAO as aforementioned, the lower Court having adopted all the procedures with due opportunity for the parties to be heard was able to arrive at fixing the market value of the land of both unirrigated dry and irrigated dry acquired in this case at Rs.375 per acre, i.e., Rs.37,500 per hectare. 9. On the part of the claimant, the claimant, besides examining himself as P.W.1, would also examine yet another witness as P.W.2, who is an authorised land Surveyor, for oral evidence. On the part of the Government, the former L.A.O., has been examined as the sole witness. For documentary evidence, the claimant/ respondent herein would place Five documents on record which have been marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 being the Savings Pass Book in Vellore Sugar Factory in the name of the claimant. Exs.A-2 and A-3 being the photostat copies of the sale deeds respectively dated 29.12.1980 and 22.4.1981. Ex.A-4 is the sketch and Ex.A-5 is the estimate. Likewise, on the part of the Government, 12 documents would be marked as Exs.B-1 to B-12. Ex.A-1 being the Savings Pass Book in Vellore Sugar Factory in the name of the claimant. Exs.A-2 and A-3 being the photostat copies of the sale deeds respectively dated 29.12.1980 and 22.4.1981. Ex.A-4 is the sketch and Ex.A-5 is the estimate. Likewise, on the part of the Government, 12 documents would be marked as Exs.B-1 to B-12. Ex.B-1 being the notice served under Secs.9(3) and 10 of the Act. Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-3 are the data sale deeds. Exs.B-4 and B-5 are the photostat copies of the sale deed respectively dated 26.8.1979 and 10.10.1979. Exs.B-6 to B-12 are the sketch and the revenue records, like extract of the ‘A’ register, cultivation adangal, chitta extracts, etc. 10. The Court of reference while having its own discussion on the evidence placed on record, would bring in that it is a land which would yield in all the three seasons and there is no proof to establish that any of these lands is unirrigated dry, and therefore, the lower Court in its own right, did not agree that the land measuring 0.25.9 hectare falling under S.No.174/2 having been classified as unirrigated dry by the L.A.O., instead he would treat both the lands together, though a slight difference is seen in between both lands. The lower Court has further considered that the lands acquired are adjacent to the railway station and adjacent to S.No.173, there is a cart track and they have potential value in future, which has not been considered by the L.A.O., as a result of which, he was not able to arrive at the right decision to fix the market value of the land at Rs.375 per acre taking into consideration not only the documents, but also the oral evidence adduced by parties and the witnesses in a overall consideration of the facts and circumstances brought forth in evidence, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to fix the market value of the lands acquired in this case at Rs.375 per acre and this enhanced market value is only testified by the Government in the appeal as exorbitant, excess and disproportionate. 11. 11. While considering the evidence made available, it is revealed that the lands are capable of fetching an income of Rs.6,000 per crop year if paddy is planted and Rs.12,000 per acre if sugarcane is planted, excluding the expenses, and therefore, even the multiplication method is applied, at an average, if the yearly income is estimated at Rs.10,000 for 20 years, the income would be Rs.2,40,000. Hence, regarding the rich value of the lands and its potentiality, there is no doubt at all, and therefore, the fixation of the market value of these lands at Rs.37,500 per hectare by the lower Court is quite reasonable and acceptable and the same is confirmed by this Court also. 12. There is a clear discussion in comparison of the documents placed on record on both sides and weighing the facts and circumstances in the light of the evidence placed on record, valid conclusions have been arrived at by the lower Court in fixing the market value of the land at Rs.375 per acre and so far as the fixation of this value is concerned, it has been validly and legally arrived at by the lower Court in a justifiable manner, and hence, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with such a conclusion arrived at by the lower Court. 13. It is relevant to point out that no parties to the documents taken up for comparison on both sides have been examined in this case. To the then prevailing position of law as held by the Supreme Court in (i) Inder Singh v. UOI. 13. It is relevant to point out that no parties to the documents taken up for comparison on both sides have been examined in this case. To the then prevailing position of law as held by the Supreme Court in (i) Inder Singh v. UOI. (1993)3 S.C.C. 240 (ii) P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad (1995)2 S.C.C. 305 (iii) The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr.Harisingh Tahakur The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr.Harisingh Tahakur The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr.Harisingh Tahakur A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 472 and (iv) Mangaldas v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 128 wherein it was held that some one connected to the document, like the vendor, vendee, attestor or the scribe should be examined in oral evidence, lest, those documents of title deeds taken up for comparison of the value of the land have no evidentiary value without examination of such parties, as a result of which, in those cases of lands acquired in the same acquisition proceedings by the LAO for the same purpose of the BHEL Project have been remanded for want of proper evidence with direction to conduct a fresh enquiry in compliance with the requirements of law then prevailed. 14. However, recently, a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in Land Acquisition Officer v. V.Narasaiah, 2001 Spl. Case No.146 Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2001 arising out of S.L.P. (civil) No.19222 of 2000, dated 27.2.2001, has categorically held that for appreciating a document in original or the certified copy of the sale deed could be considered without examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein and the High Court, cannot therefore be faulted with for relying on the transactions recorded in such documents though no one has been examined for proving such transactions, thus overruling the propositions held in the above cited four cases. Therefore, following the latest proposition of the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to remand the above appeal for fresh enquiry to be held, since there is no impediment on this Court to appreciate the certified copies of the documents placed on record, in evidence. 15. It is further seen that the Court of Reference has correctly granted the statutory benefit, such as solatium at 30% on the compensation amount. 15. It is further seen that the Court of Reference has correctly granted the statutory benefit, such as solatium at 30% on the compensation amount. Further, the lower Court has not granted interest since the possession of the land had not been taken by the Government. However, it has become necessary to effect modification in the grant of interest on the market value at 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% for every subsequent year, on the amount calculated as the market value of the land, till the date of realisation. It is also made clear that the respondent/ claimant is not entitled to get 12% additional amount since the award of the L.A.O., has been made as early as on 31.12.1981, which is prior to 30.4.1982, the cut-off date. 16. However, following the decision of the Apex Court in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh (1997)1 S.C.C. 249 it is hereby held that no interest shall be calculated on the statutory benefits, such as, the solatium or additional amount or the interest that accrue on the award amount. To clarify, only on the market value as fixed by this Court and the award made, the interest shall be calculated. 17. Inresult, subject to the modification to the extent indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, in all other respects, the above appeal suit is dismissed. No costs.