R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the common judgment dated 21-10-1998 passed in O. P. Nos. 306 of 1995 and batch by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. As such these appeals also can be disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) A few facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under: An extent of ac. 28. 22 guntas of land belonging to several claimants herein, situated in Thomalapally village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district was notified for acquisition for the purpose of excavating left main canal of priyadarshini Jurala Project. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was published on 21-4-1992. Even before the publication of Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the lands in question was taken on 1-2-1990 by invoking the urgency clause. In the award enquiry initiated for payment of compensation, the claimants filed claim petitions, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the Category-I lands (wet lands), Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the Category-II and III lands (irrigable dry lands and dry lands respectively ). The Land acquisition Officer has passed Award bearing No. 20 of 1992, dated 21-10-1992 fixing the market value for the acquired lands at Rs. 25,000/- per acre for the Wet lands, Rs. 23,000/- per acre for the irrigable dry lands and Rs. 21,000/- per acre for the dry lands. Dissatisfied with the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition officer, the claimants sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and accordingly the claims were referred to, to the learned Senior Civil Judge, at wanaparthy and the same were numbered as OP. No. 306 of 1995 and Batch. At the request of the claimants and the Land acquisition Officer, all the OPs were clubbed with the main OP. No. 306 of 1995 and common evidence was let in. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as P. Ws. l to 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were pressed into service. On behalf of the respondent- Land Acquisition Officer, he was examined as R. W. I and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked. No. 306 of 1995 and common evidence was let in. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as P. Ws. l to 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were pressed into service. On behalf of the respondent- Land Acquisition Officer, he was examined as R. W. I and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked. Apart from the issue of market value, the Reference Courthas alsoexamined the entitlement of the benefit of additional market value at 12% per annum as contemplated under Section 23 (1-A) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. ( 3 ) THE learned Reference Judge after elaborate discussion, has recorded finding that there were no proper reasons for discarding Exs. A-5 and A-6 by the Land acquisition Officer while assessing the market value of the acquired lands. It is to be noted that Tomalapally village is a hamlet village of pebbair, which is also a Gram panchayat. It is also not in dispute that the lands acquired at Tomalapally village are on the National High Way No. 7, leading from hyderabad to Bangalore. The Land acquisition Officer in his Award itself has also recorded findings that Tomalapally village is hamlet of Pebbair and they are adjoining villages and the lands in tomalapally village are better lands from the fertility point of view, comparable to the lands in Pebbair. Though the documents in exs. A-5 and A-6 were taken note of by the land Acquisition Officer, the same were not taken into consideration, only on the ground that those documents were executed after possession of the lands in question was taken in the year 1990. But the Reference Court, with reference to the evidence on record, while holding that there are no reasons for discarding the comparable sales Exs. A-5 and a-6 and relying on the same, fixed the compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the category-I land, Rs. 45,000/-per, acre for the category-II lands and with regard to category-Ill lands, based on the earlier judgments in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and also taking clues from Ex. B-1 award itself, fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. A-5 and a-6 and relying on the same, fixed the compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the category-I land, Rs. 45,000/-per, acre for the category-II lands and with regard to category-Ill lands, based on the earlier judgments in Exs. A-1 and A-2 and also taking clues from Ex. B-1 award itself, fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Further with regard to the entitlement of the benefit of additional market value at 12% per annum as contemplated under section 23 (1-A) of the land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to the additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of award, i. e. 1-2-1990 to 21-10-1992. Against the said fixation of compensation, the State has preferred the above appeals. ( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the State has submitted that the enhancement of the market value, as ordered by the Reference Court is illegal and arbitrary and the Reference Court should not have relied on Exs. A-5 and A-6, which are motivated sales. He also further submits that there is no basis for fixing the market value at Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Category-II lands. He also further submits that the learned Reference Judge erred in granting the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land acquisition Act and that the claimants are not entitled to at all, as they are getting the benefit of interest on the compensation as contemplated under Section 34 of the land acquisition Act. In support of his plea that the motivated sales should not be relied on, the learned Government Pleader relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in land Acquisition officer, Eluru v. Smt. Jasti rohini, where in the Apex Court, while reiterating the principles of law for determination of compensation for the acquired lands, held that only bonaf ide sales should be taken into consideration. Further, the learned Government Pleader also relied on an un-reported judgment of this Court in venigandla Srinivas v. Government of A. P. (Writ petition Nos. Further, the learned Government Pleader also relied on an un-reported judgment of this Court in venigandla Srinivas v. Government of A. P. (Writ petition Nos. 12276 of 1994 and 17858 of 1995) in support of his submission that by virtue of benefit of interest on the market value as contemplated under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are not entitled to the benefit under Sec. 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri A. Narasimha reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents- claimants submits that the market value as fixed by the learned Reference Judge is just and reasonable and submits that the reference Court has rightly taken into consideration Exs. A-5 and A-6 for fixing the market value. He submits that the Land acquisition Officer has discarded the comparable sales under Exs. A-5 and A-6 branding them as motivated sales, in absence of any evidence, and on the mere presumption that the sale deeds were executed after possession of the lands in question were taken. He submits that even with reference to the evidence on record before the Reference Court, there is absolutely no reason to discard the sales under Exs. A-5 and A-6. The learned Counsel submits that though the lands under acquisition are of Tomalapally village, tompallay and Pebbair are adjoining villages with common boundaries and it is a matter of evidence that Tomalapally village is on national High Way No. 7, leading from hyderabad to Bangalore and the Land acquisition Officer himself has recorded that the lands in Tomalapally village are better fertile lands than the lands of Pebbair; as such there is no reason for discarding the lands under Exs. A-5 and A-6, though they are of Pebbair village. He further submits that the Court below has rightly awarded additional market value payable under section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. As such, he prayed that there are no grounds for interference by this Court with the judgment and decree of the Reference Court and requested for dismissal of the appeals. ( 6 ) IN view of the respective contentions, the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired lands is excessive or just and reasonable. ( 6 ) IN view of the respective contentions, the question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired lands is excessive or just and reasonable. Further, the question which arise for consideration is, whether the claimants are entitled to additional market value at 12% per annum as contemplated under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as awarded by the Court below from the date of taking possession till the da te of Award. ( 7 ) WITH regard to fixation of the market due of the acquire lands, it is to be noted from Ex. B-1 Award itself that it is evident that the villages of Tomalapally and pebbair are adjoining villages with common boundaries. The village of Tomalapally is a hamlet of Pebbair under the same Gram panchayat. Further it is also evident from the award itself, as admitted by the Land acquisition Officer that the lands in tomalapally village are more fertile lands than the lands in Pebbair village. The Court below has elaborately discussed the issue of comparability of sales under Exs. A-5 and a-6 and held that those sales can be taken into consideration in view of the evidence on record. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Reference Judge that exs. A-5 and A-6 can be relied on for the purpose of fixation of market value of the acquired lands. ( 8 ) IT is true that the lands under acquisition were notified by issuing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the LA Act, which is published in the Gazettee on 21-4-1992 and the possession was taken in this case even earlier to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, Ex. A-5: Sale deed is dt. 13-8-1990 and Ex. A-6: Sale deed is dated 30-7-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said sales, while fixing the market value of the acquired lands, on the ground that they are motivated sales. A-5: Sale deed is dt. 13-8-1990 and Ex. A-6: Sale deed is dated 30-7-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded the said sales, while fixing the market value of the acquired lands, on the ground that they are motivated sales. While it is true, as submitted by the learned Government pleader based on the judgment of the Apex court, referred to above, that only bonafide sales should be taken into consideration while fixing the compensation for the acquired lands under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the question, whether the said sales are motivated one or not, is a question of fact, which has to be judged based on the facts and circumstances of each case and evidence on record. Coming to the evidence on record in this case, the land Acquisition Officer, merely on the ground that the sale deeds are executed after taking the possession of the acquired lands, though they are much prior to the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, has presumed that they are motivated sales; Whereas, learned Reference court categorically held that Exs. A-5 and a-6 are bonafide transactions and they do not relate to the acquired lands. We have also scanned the evidence on record, particularly the depositions of the Vendees of Exs. A-5 and A-6 and there is nothing in their evidence to suspect the genuineness of the Exs. A-5 and A-6. Not even a suggestion is given to P. Ws. 2 and 3, who are vendees under Exs. A-5 and A-6, about the genuineness of Exs. A-5 and A-6. In spite of the fact that the notification of the acquired lands is of the year 1992, the Reference court adopted the same rates as reflected in exs. A-5 and 6, which are of the year 1990. Further no escalation is given though there is sufficient time lag between Exs. A-5 and a-6 and the notification of the acquired lands. As such, the Court below has rightly relied on Exs. A-5 and A-6 and fixed the compensation for the acquired lands for category-I at Rs. 50,000/- per acre and the same can not be said to be excessive. Even the submission of the learned Government pleader that fixation of compensation at rs. 45,000/- per acre for the Category-II lands is on higher side, is also not tenable. In fact it is evident from Ex. 50,000/- per acre and the same can not be said to be excessive. Even the submission of the learned Government pleader that fixation of compensation at rs. 45,000/- per acre for the Category-II lands is on higher side, is also not tenable. In fact it is evident from Ex. B-1 Award itself that there was not much of difference at all between category-I and Category-II lands and even the Category-II lands, though they are irrigable dry lands, they are cultivated as wet lands on par with the category-I lands and still the same rate as awarded to category-I lands is not given by the Court below, however, it fixed only Rs. 45,000/- per acre sofar as Category-II lands are concerned, which cannot be said to be excessive and arbitrary. ( 9 ) SO far as Category-Ill lands are concerned, based on Exs. A-1 and A-2, which are previous judgments pertaining to dry lands of Pebbair, the Court below has fixed the compensation at Rs. 40,000/ - per acre. As per Judgments in Exs. A-1 and A-2, for the dry lands of Pebbair, in the Awards No. 11 of 1987 and 28 of 1987, the Land Acquisition officer has himself fixed Rs. 20,000/- per acre and on reference, the market value was enhanced to Rs. 63,000/- per acre. Taking clues from Ex. B-1 award itself, between 1987-92, as the rates were doubled, the reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 40,000/- per acre, which we feel that the same will represent true market value of the acquired lands, as much as the notification of the acquired lands is of the year 1992. ( 10 ) COMING to the question of entitlement of additional market value as provided under section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Government Pleader would submit that in as much as the possession was taken earlier to notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisiti6n Act, the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of 12% additional market value as they are getting interest on compensation. In support of his plea, he relied on the judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition Nos. 12276 of 1994 and 17858 of 1995. In support of his plea, he relied on the judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition Nos. 12276 of 1994 and 17858 of 1995. ( 11 ) SECTION 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition act provides that, the Court shall, in addition to the market value, in every case, award an amount at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period from the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of such land, to the date of Award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, which ever is earlier. The Supreme Court while considering the object of introduction of Section 23 (1-A) by Act 68 of 1984 and interpreting the expression whichever is earlier appearing in the said provision in asst. Commissioner, GADAG Sub Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa held as under: "the object of introducing Sec. 23 (1-A) is to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner of the land, who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by taking possession from him and using it for public purpose, because of considerable delay in making the award and offering payment thereof. To obviate such hardship, Section 23 (1-A) was introduced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the possession is taken earlier and notification is issued later, but the award is subsequently made, the owner or the claimant is entitled to the additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of the award, though possession was taken before the notification under Section 4 (1) was published. The expression which ever is earlier has to be construed in that backdrop and the claimant would be entitled to additional amount by way of compensation for loss of enjoyment of the land from the date of taking possession. " ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court further held that the claimants are not entitled to additional compensation if they themselves question the notification and its invalidity is upheld by the Court. In the present case, the claimants have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and on the other hand they have handed over the possession at the request of the Government. In the present case, the claimants have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and on the other hand they have handed over the possession at the request of the Government. We, therefore, hold that the claimants are entitled to the additional market value of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act to the date of the Award. ( 13 ) IN view of the judgment of the Apex court, it is clear that even in cases possession is taken earlier to notification under section 4 (l)of the Act, so far as the additional market value of 12% per annum, as contemplated under Section 23 (1-A) of the act is concerned, the claimants are entitled to from the date of notification to the date of award. In view of the same, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that since the interest is provided on the compensation, the claimants are not entitled to additional amount, cannot be accepted. The provisions relating to interest under Sections 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act are independent and without reference to the additional benefit of 12% additional market value, as contemplated under Section 23 (1-A) of the la Act. In view of the same, we hold that the respondents-claimants are entitled to additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum. But, however, we clarify that the respondents-claimants are entitled to the same, from the date of notification to the date of Award. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Reference Court. We accordingly dismiss the appeals preferred by the State. No costs. However, we clarify that the respondents-claimants are entitled to interest on additional market value and solatium.