Judgment : 1. The above appeal suit is directed against the order dated 22.9.1986 made in L.A.O.P.No.S of 1985 by the Court of Reference and Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. 2. To trace the facts of the case, the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired an extent of 1 acre 68 cents falling under S.No.58/3A of Enmanamgondan village of Ramanathapuram Taluk, for providing house sites to landless Adi Dravidars of the said village, by issuing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the land acquisition-act, which got published in the official gazette on 21.12.1983. During enquiry the land acquisition Officer 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 area, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.85.71 per cent. 3. Aggrieved, the claimants,. who are the owners of the lands acquired, have made representations to refer the subject to the Court of Reference resulting the same having been referred under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act and the said court having conducted a full enquiry allowing the parties to adduce evidence and based on such recorded evidence, having its own appreciation, on the same, would ultimately enhance the value of the lands acquired from Rs.85.71 per cent as it had been fixed by the Referring Officer to Rs.2.000 per cent. It is only aggrieved against this enhancement in the fixation of the value of the acquired lands made on the part of the Court of Reference, the Referring Officer has come forward to prefer the above appeal suit. 4. In the above circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the award passed by the Court of Reference is sustainable in law? 5. 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 an extent of 1.68 acres of land falling under S.No.58/3A. 5. 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 an extent of 1.68 acres of land falling under S.No.58/3A. of Enmanamgondan village has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars, publishing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.12.1983 and the Referring Officer having considered the value of the property acquired from the claimants with the help of Ex.B1 village sketch and Ex.B2 the sales statistics of the village showing the registration of sale held in between 20.1.1981 to 12.12.1983 i.e. for two years prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was on 21.12.1983, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.85.71 per cent. Aggrieved, the claimants being the lawful owners of the property acquired, requested to refer the matter to the Court of Reference, resulting in the same, having been referred to under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the lower court and the said court having held an enquiry, in which two witnesses including the first claimant has been examined as P.W.1 and one Velappan has been examined as P.W.2 for the oral evidence and the Land Acquisition Officer himself has been examined as the sole witness on the side of the Government as RW1. For documentary evidence, three documents have been marked on the part of the claimants as Exs.A.1 to A. 3 and as aforementioned two documents have been marked on the part of the Government as Exs.B.1 and B.2. 1. 6. So far as the fixation of the market value of the land acquired is concerned, the appellant has considered one data sale land from Ex.B2 sales statistics which is falling under S.No.58/4A wherein, under a sale deed dated 31.3.1983, an extent of 7 cents of land has been sold at Rs.600, and therefore, based on the said document, would fix the market value of acquired land at Rs.85.71 per cent. Moreover, the Referring Officer, in his oral evidence would depose that none of the exhibits marked on the part of the claimants has been shown in Ex. Moreover, the Referring Officer, in his oral evidence would depose that none of the exhibits marked on the part of the claimants has been shown in Ex. B2 sales statistics, and therefore, those documents could not be considered for the fixation of the market value of the lands acquired by the Government. 7. On the contrary, the claimants would greatly, rely upon Exs.A1 to A3 whereas under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 6.6.1978, 5 cents of land has been sold at Rs.7000 i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,400 per cent and under Exs.A2 and A3 sale deeds both dated 5.12.1983, 3 cents of land under each of these documents have been sold at Rs.7,500/-i.e. at the rate of Rs.2,500 per cent. The Court of Reference, having considered not only the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1, but also the documentary evidence placed on record, would reject the contentions of the appellant, so far as it is concerned either with the oral evidence of R.W.1 or even with the documentary evidence of Exs.B.1 and B.2. The lower court would not attach any importance to Exs.A2 and A3 placed on record by the claimants, which are the sale deeds dated 5.12.1983 since the 4(1) notification in this case was made on 21.12.1983, remarking that these two documents have been motivatedly registered for claiming higher compensation for the lands acquired. But, no motive could be attributed to Ex.A1 sale deed which was five years earlier to the acquisition proceedings, and therefore, placing reliance on Ex.A1 sale deed, wherein five cents of land falling under S.No.58/3 had been sold at Rs.7,000 i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,400 per cent and applying additions for the five years, wherein the cost of lands should have definitely increased, would ultimately arrived at the conclusion to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,000 per cent, further granting a solatium of 30% and with interest at 15% from the date of taking possession of the land, till the date of realisation of the award amount. 8. 8. Though the lower court has reasonably considered and fixed the market value of the lands acquired based on Ex.A1 sale deed, so far as it is concerned with the market value of the land, especially in view of the fact that the acquired land is failing under S.No.58/3A and since Ex.A1 land is also concerned with S.No.58/3, much reasons prevail in the adoptation of the rate under which Ex.A1 land has been sold, as the market value for the land acquired. However, the lower court has failed to consider that the land acquired herein is a larger extent measuring 1.68 acres and the lands sold under Ex.A1 is a very minor extent measuring 5 cents which is very meagre, and therefore, the lower court has failed to apply certain deductions as advocated on the part of the Apex Court in its various decisions, such as, (i) Land Acquisition Officer, Chittoor v. L.Kamalamma , AIR 1998 S.C. 781 and (ii) K.Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer , AIR 1995 S.C. 2481 . 9. In the above circumstances, it has become highly necessary on the part of this court to apply such deductions which could be to the extent of 60%, but depending upon the circumstances of each case and considering the facts and circumstances encircling the case in hand, this court is of the view that a deduction of 20% applied from the fixation of the market value by the Court of Reference will serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in application of the said deduction of 20%, the market value of the land would be modified as Rs.1,600 per cent, which is a just and reasonable value fixed as on the date of 4(1) notification and the same is confirmed accordingly. 10. Further, it is seen that the Court of Reference though has correctly fixed the solatium at 30% on the compensation amount, has not awarded the additional amount. However, it is made clear that the claimants are entitled to get the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award of the Referring Officer, or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. It is also seen that the lower court has awarded 15% interest from the date of taking possession till realisation. It is also seen that the lower court has awarded 15% interest from the date of taking possession till realisation. Therefore, it has become necessary to effect modification in the grant of interest 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. 11. However, following the decision of the Apex Court in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P. Sinah , 1997 (1) SCC 249 , it is hereby held that no interest shall be calculated on the statutory benefits, such as the solatium or the additional amount or the interest that accrue. To clarify, only on the market value fixed by this court, the interest shall be calculated. In result, the above appeal suit is allowed in part modifying the market value of the land as it had been fixed by the Court of Reference at Rs.2,000 per cent thereby reducing the same to Rs.1,600 per cent, in addition to the modifications effected regarding the grant of statutory benefits as indicated in para, No. 10 above. No costs.