Judgment : 1. Theclaimant in L.A.O.P. No. 34 of 1986 on the file of VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant in the above appeal. 2. An extent of 2 grounds and 1097 sq.ft., of land in S. No.455/11 in Egmore Village were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the construction of M.I.G. and H.I.G. flats by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act’) has been published in the Government gazette dated 13.05.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award proceedings has fixed the market value for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 37,545.00 per ground. Aggrieved by the said amount, at the instance of the land owner, the matter has been referred to VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras under Section 18 of the Act, which resulted in L.A.O.P. No. 34 of 1986. 3. Before the Court below, the claimant herself got examined as P.W.1 and produced and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 in support of her claim for higher compensation. The Referring Officer has been examined as R.W.1 and has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his stand. The learned Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000.00 per ground, as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000.00 per ground and also granted statutory amounts payable under the Act. Against the said order, the claimant has preferred the above appeal. 4. Heard Mr. N. Istiaq Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional-Government Pleader for respondent. 5. The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant is entitled higher compensation as claimed? 6. The perusal of the award proceedings show? that the Land Acquisition Officer after considering eight sale deeds in respect of nearby sites, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,545.00 per ground. The claimant as P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that, her father had purchased the land in question. namely plot No.8. Poonamallee High Road in S.No. 455 under the original of Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs. 41,167.00 on 12.5.1967. Total extent of land covered under that sale deed is 3 ground and 400 sq.ft., Ex.P.2 is the plan. She also produced two sale deeds in support of her claim for higher compensation. namely plot No.8. Poonamallee High Road in S.No. 455 under the original of Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs. 41,167.00 on 12.5.1967. Total extent of land covered under that sale deed is 3 ground and 400 sq.ft., Ex.P.2 is the plan. She also produced two sale deeds in support of her claim for higher compensation. Ex.P.3 dated 29.08.1984 relates to Door No.445, Poonamallee High Road in S.No. 154. The sale consideration mentioned therein is Rs.2,02,500.00. In the other sale deed Ex.P.4 dated 27.06.1985, one ground has been sold at the rate of Rs. 2,60,000.00. Since Exs.P.3 and P. 4 are of the year 1984 and 1985, nearly three years after the issuance of Section 4(1) notification, the same cannot be considered to arrive a market value for the acquired land. However, P.W.1 in her evidence has asserted that the acquired property is located in a very valuable point and nearer to Egmore Railway Station. 7. There is no dispute that the acquired land is situate on the Poonamallee High Road. Even in chief examination she deposed that “... The property acquired is situated in heart of City. It is very close to Egmore Railway Station. It is also nearer to Central Railway Station. It is on he Poonamallee High Road. It is close to Kilpakkam Medical Hospital and multi-storied building is there. All the details furnished by the claimant as P.W.1 clearly show that the acquired land is in the prime area and the purpose of acquisition is for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Both the Land Acquisition Officer as well the learned Judge failed to consider and appreciate the potential value and its locational advantage while arriving market value for the acquired land. Even if we discard Exs.P.3 and P.4 on the ground that the sale transactions had effected after three or four yea rs from the issuance of Section 4(1) notification, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the locational advantage, potential value being used as house site cannot be ignored. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer , Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 305 , wherein their Lordships after referring Section 23 of the Act as well as the relevant materials observed that. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer , Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others, 1995 (2) S.C.C. 305 , wherein their Lordships after referring Section 23 of the Act as well as the relevant materials observed that. “9 Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as : (i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town of village which had been growing in size because of” its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up, the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; (iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes; (v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land; (vi) benefits or advantages of educational institution health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and (vii) land around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.” It is not disputed in our case that the purpose of acquisition is for construction of houses / flats by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In the said decision their Lordships have also held that, when once a conclusion is reached that there was a possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near feature, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. In view of the purpose for acquisition and in the light of assertion made by P.W.1 regarding locational advantage, considering the fact that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in 1981, 1 am of the view that proper and the just market value in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act would be Rs.1 lakh per ground. It is clear that the acquired land satisfies all the matters referred to in the above said Supreme Court decision. The Court below failed to consider the assertion made by P.W.1 and admission of R.W.1 regarding locational advantage and its value. 1 am satisfied that sum of Rs.l lakh per ground would be the just and reasonable market value for the acquired land. To this extent the order of the Court below is modified. 8. With regard to the statutory amounts, payable to the claimant, it is made clear that the claimant is entitled 30% solatium only for the market value of the lands acquired. In addition to this, the claimant is also entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of passing the award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier. It is also made clear that the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit. It is further made clear that the claimant is not entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount. Further, the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, depending on the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court, the claimant is permitted to file an appropriate petition before the Sub-Court. 9. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above. No costs.