Judgment :- 1. Both the above appeal suits have arisen out of one and the same judgment rendered in LAOP No. 266 of 1983 on the same subject matter and the parties are also related to each other as brothers and therefore, both the above appeal suits are heard and decided jointly in this common judgment. 2. The above appeal suits are directed against the award and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in LAOP NO. 266/83 dated 5.10.1990. A reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court of Reference, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipettai, the first respondent herein. The first respondent by order dated 18.9.1980 passed an order fixing the value of the land acquired from the petitioners at Rs. 40/- per cent. Aggrieved against that, the claimants filed a petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The learned Subordinate Judge by his decree dated 5.10.1990 enhanced the value of the land acquired from the claimants from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 350/-. Not satisfied with that the claimants 3 and 4 seeking enhanced compensation to the extent of Rs. 1000/- have independently preferred these appeal suits on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of appeals. 3. Tracing the history of the case, it would be disclosed that the properties falling under S. Nos. 247/2B to an extent of 2.06 cents, S. No. 248 to an extent of 0.87 cents, S. No. 249/B1B to an extent of 0.57 cents, S. No. 249/B2B to an extent of 5.86 cents, have been acquired by the Government on payment of total compensation of Rs. 47,775.60 at the rate of 40% as allotted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore enhanced the value of the land at Rs. 350/- per cent. The grounds under which the appellants herein have come forward to prefer the above appeals are that the areas and localities in which the lands have been acquired are situated in a fast developing, prominent and busy locality and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/- per cent. The grounds under which the appellants herein have come forward to prefer the above appeals are that the areas and localities in which the lands have been acquired are situated in a fast developing, prominent and busy locality and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/-per cent is not at all commensurate with the actual market value of the lands acquired; that the lower court has failed to assess the potentiality of the lands and the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired; that the lower court ought to have accepted the claim made in toto giving importance to the locality, proximity and utility of the lands acquired; that the lower court erred in law in brushing aside Ex.A1 on the ground that as it was registered long after the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, it cannot be relied on or acted upon; that there is no absolute proposition that under no circumstances the sale deeds subsequent to Section 4(1) notification cannot be relied on. On such grounds, the appellants have come forward to prefer the above appeals claiming the entire compensation at Rs. 1000/- per cent. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition officer is Rs. 40/- per cent whereas that was enhanced by the lower court on a fabulous sum of Rs. 350/- and futher more, since the lands in the area are only fit for agricultural operations and would require lot of amount to improve it for the purpose for which it is acquired, the amount already granted by the lower court itself is sufficient and the enhanced amount as sought for by the appellants cannot be granted in the circumstances of the case. 5. A perusal of the award passed by the lower court would show that the lower court has not only tracing the history of the case as pleaded by parties, but also assessing the manner in which the Land Acquisition Officer has done, arriving at the conclusion to fix the amount of Rs. 40/- per cent. Further the lower court has taken into consideration the fact that 4(1) notification had been issued on 13.10.1976 and also considered the market value of the lands prevalent at that time. 40/- per cent. Further the lower court has taken into consideration the fact that 4(1) notification had been issued on 13.10.1976 and also considered the market value of the lands prevalent at that time. It has also discussed regarding the location and importance of the lands acquired under four survey numbers. Some of the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 2000/- per cent before the Land Acquisition Officer because nearby the lands acquired, a main road is leading to Tiruttani and a fire service station, taluk office, the police station are located and also there are many dwelling houses very close to the lands acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to note all these advantageous facility available in and around the lands acquired. The lower court has taken into consideration the various other factors and Ex.A2 dated 11.6.1975, the sale deed under which 6 cents of lands have been sold for fabulous price and taking into consideration of this document, further rejecting Ex.A1 on ground that it is a document which come into existence long after the publication of 4(1) notification would ultimately fixed the value of the land at Rs. 350/- for the purpose of payment of compensation to the petitioners. The lower court would also specifically rejected Ex.A1 dated 14.8.1982 remarking that this document had come into existence six years after publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and also giving sufficient weightage to the actual market value of the lands and would ultimately fixed the value of the lands acquired at Rs. 350/- per cent which in all respects is just and reasonable. 6. It is not only the conclusions arrived at by the lower court, but also the manner in which the said conclusions have been arrived at are quite in adherence and to the expectations of law in which this Court does not see any tangible reason to cause its interference as it is sought to be made in the above appeal suits. 7. 7. Further, the Court of Reference has fixed the statutory benefits, such as, solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation amount and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year, from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% thereafter for every subsequent year, on the amount calculated as the market value of the land, till the date of realisation which need no modification. Further, the claimants are not entitled to get additional amount at 12% since the award was made as early as in the year 1980. 8. The Apex Court, in its recent judgment delivered in Sundar v. Union Of India reported in VI (2001) SLT 641 = 2002 2 L.W. 39 has held that the claimants from whom the lands have been acquired by the Government for public purpose against which compensation has been granted, with interest and solatium, are also entitled for interest on the solatium so granted. Their Lordships have held: “In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium” 9. In result, subject to the modification regarding the grant of interest on solatium allowing the same at 9% per annum as stated in paragraph 8 above, in all other respects, the appeal suits are dismissed. No costs.