ORDER 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE PREFERRED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT. AN EXTENT OF 26.95 ACRES OF LAND WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF KANHIRAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT FOR WHICH A NOTIFICATION WAS PUBLISHED ON 19-10-1981. OUT OF THE SAID LAND 18.86 ACRES OF LAND WAS DRY LAND AND THE REST WAS DOUBLE CROP WETLAND. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BY HIS AWARD DATED 30-9-1982 FIXED THE LAND VALUE AT RS 100 PER ACRE FOR DRY LAND AND RS 250 PER ACRE FOR THE WETLAND. THE CLAIMANT SOUGHT A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, OTTAPPALAM, BY HIS JUDGMENT DATED 12-2-1988, DECLINED TO GRANT ANY ENHANCEMENT OF THE LAND VALUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE CLAIMANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT FIXED THE LAND VALUE FOR THE ENTIRE AREA AT RS 1175 PER ACRE. THIS JUDGMENT IS CHALLENGED BEFORE US. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. THOUGH THE RESPONDENT SUB- TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), KANHIRAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT, PALGHAT DISTRICT, KERALA, WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE, NOBODY HAS APPEARED BEFORE US. 3. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT EXT. A-1 DOCUMENT WAS RELIED ON BY THE HIGH COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING THE LAND VALUE AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND SHOWN IN EXT. A-1 DATED 9-9-1982 WAS PURCHASED BY A W 2 AT THE RATE OF RS 4693 PER ACRE AND THE HIGH COURT HAD GRANTED ONLY L/4TH OF THE PRICE SHOWN IN EXT. A-1. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, IS ERRONEOUS AND THE HIGH COURT SHOULD HAVE FIXED THE LAND VALUE ON THE BASIS OF EXT. A-1 DOCUMENT. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE DOCUMENT EXT. A-1 CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION. THOUGH IT IS STATED IN EXT. A-1 THAT THERE WAS A REGISTERED AGREEMENT FOR SALE IN RESPECT OF EXT. A-1 TRANSACTION, THAT AGREEMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED. MOREOVER, EXT. A-1 IS IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND, WHEREAS THE ACQUISITION WAS IN RESPECT OF ABOUT 50 CENTS OF LAND. THESE FACTORS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT IN FIXING THE LAND VALUE. MOREOVER, THE LAND ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN IRRIGATION PROJECT. MOREOVER, EXT. A-1 IS IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND, WHEREAS THE ACQUISITION WAS IN RESPECT OF ABOUT 50 CENTS OF LAND. THESE FACTORS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT IN FIXING THE LAND VALUE. MOREOVER, THE LAND ACQUIRED WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN IRRIGATION PROJECT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LAND HAD ANY COMMERCIAL VALUE OR FUTURE POTENTIALITIES. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE LAND VALUE FIXED IS TOO LOW TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY THIS COURT. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN YADAVRAO P. PATHADE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1 AND DENIED THE APPELLANT INTEREST ON SOLATIUM AND THE AMOUNT FIXED UNDER SECTION 23(1-A) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE DECISION IN YADAVRAO P. PATHADE1 WAS OVERRULED BY CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN SUNDER V. UNION OF INDIA2 AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST IS PAYABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED AND THAT INCLUDES SOLATIUM AND THE AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1-A) OF A SECTION 23. IN VIEW OF THE SAID DECISION THE APPELLANT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO GET INTEREST ON SOLATIUM AND ALSO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT AWARDED UNDER SECTION 23(1-A), AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 28 (AMENDED) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. 5. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE.