JUDGMENT 1. This order shall govern the disposal of this appeal as well as F.A. No. 61/95 (The State of M.P. v. Umesh Kumar and others), F.A. No. 62/95 (The State of M.P. v. Jaideo Singh) and F.A. No. 63/95 (The State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar and others). As all these four appeals arise out of the common order passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 17/85, 20/85, 21/85 and 22/85 and two other references and all the four appeals were heard together, they are being decided analogously by this common order. 2. The facts leading to the filing of those appeals lie in a narrow compass : The State Government for the purposes of Tawa Project proposed to acquire 2.96 acres of land out of survey No. 301/02 of village Mangrol, Tehsil and Distt. Hoshanga-bad belonging to appellant Kusum Kumari who is now represented through her L-Rs., 2.20 and 0.66 acres of land out of survey Nos. 269 and 260/03 respectively of the same village belonging to Narendra Singh. 2.01 acres of land out of survey No. 283/1 of the same village belonging to Umesh Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sadan Kumar and Rajendra Kumar and 0.12 acres of land out of survey No. 93/2 belonging to Jaideo Singh. 3. A notification to this effect was published. The land owners including said Narendra Singh, respondent in FA No. 60/95 Umesh Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sadan Kumar and Rajendra Kumar respondents in F.A. No. 61/95, Jaideo Singh, respondent in F.A. No. 62/95 and Kusum Kumari Devi respondent in F.A. No. 63/95 submitted their claims for compensation alleging that the market price of the land as on the date of notification was Rs. 30,000/-per acre. 4. It was alleged by all the claimants that because of the canal their lands have been divided into two parts which resulted in great in-convineance to them. Therefore, they claimed compensation on this count also. It was also the case of Narendra Singh that a tube well was standing on the acquired land, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 21,000/- for this tube well. He also claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on the ground that because of the canal, half acre of his land has become useless. It was also the case of Narendra Singh that a tube well was standing on the acquired land, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 21,000/- for this tube well. He also claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on the ground that because of the canal, half acre of his land has become useless. Claimant Umesh and three others claimed that two acres of their land have been rendered useless because of the canal and claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- on this count. They also claimed a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards tube well which has been rendered useless. Claimant Jaideo Singh also claimed Rs. 21,000/- towards tube well. He also claimed that because of the canal some of the land rendered to be useless and claimed Rs. 5,000/- on this count. Claimant Kusum Kumari claimed Rs. 19,139.70/- towards tube well and Rs. 80,000/- towards the trees standing on the land acquired. According to her 25 trees of Mango, 10 trees of orange, 25 trees of lemon and 34 trees of grapes were standing on the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands in three classes namely: Marvar Mamuli Sinchit, Mamuli Asinchit and Morand Avval Mamuli Asinchit and assessed the market value of each class of land @ Rs. 9,528.00, Rs. 9,648/- and Rs 5,707/- per acre respectively. 5. On the request of the aforesaid claimants the references were made to District Judge, Hoshangabad. The reference of Narendra Singh was registered as MJC No. 20/85. Reference of Umesh Kumar and others was registered as MJC No 21/85. Reference of Jaideo Singh was registered as MJC No. 22/85 and the reference of Kusum Kumari was registered as MJC No. 17/85. While deciding the reference, the Ist Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad held that the market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and the claimants are not entitled to any additional compensation on this count. The Reference Court also recorded a finding that the applicants have failed to prove that because of the canal, the land of the claimants have been divided into two parts. Accordingly, on this ground also the reference Court refused to award any compensation. The Reference Court also recorded a finding that the applicants have failed to prove that because of the canal, the land of the claimants have been divided into two parts. Accordingly, on this ground also the reference Court refused to award any compensation. The Court below also recorded a finding that the claimants have failed to prove that any part of the land has been rendered useless because of the canal and on this ground also the Court refused to award any compensation. 6. The Court below also recorded a finding that applicant Kusum Kumari has failed to prove that the aforementioned trees were standing on her land and refused to pay any compensation towards the said trees. However, the trial Court found that the claimants are entitled to the compensation for tube well and awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,167.75/-, 21,539/-, 21,167.75/-and 19,139.70/- to Narendra Singh, Umesh and others, Jaideo Singh and Kusum Kumari, respectively. 7. The Reference Court also awarded interest @ 12% and solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation amount. The reference Court also awarded costs to the claimants. 8. Against this order, the State Government have filed all these four appeals. 9. I have heard Shri A.L. Patel, Government Advocate for the appellant/state and Shri Ashish Shroti, counsel for the respondents in all the aforesaid four appeals and perused the record of the trial Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submitted that the Reference Court committed serious error in awarding the cost of the tube wells to the applicants. 11. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the tube wells are situated at some distance from the canal. The tube wells have not been acquired by the Government and no damages have been caused to the applicants. The respondents are still using their tube wells. Therefore, in any case the full cost of the tube wells could not have been awarded. The trial Court erred in relying on the valuation made by the Executive Engineer. 12. The contention that the tube wells have not been rendered useless cannot be accepted. The tube wells were installed for the purpose of irrigation. If the lands would not have been acquired and canal would not have been constructed, the appellants would have irrigated their lands from tube wells. 12. The contention that the tube wells have not been rendered useless cannot be accepted. The tube wells were installed for the purpose of irrigation. If the lands would not have been acquired and canal would not have been constructed, the appellants would have irrigated their lands from tube wells. Now the tube wells are not of any use for the claimants, they were entitled to the compensation for tube well. But since the tube wells were not acquired and the same are still with the appellants, they are at liberty to dispose of the pipes used in the installation of tube wells and the electric motor, therefore, it will be reasonable to award ?th of the cost of the tube wells because the appellants must have spent sufficient amount for the purpose of drilling. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed grave error in awarding solatium on the value of tube well. The solatium can be awarded only on the valuation of the land and not on the value of tube well. 14. The contention appears to be acceptable. The solatium under Clause-(2) of Section 23 of the Act is awarded on the market value of the land acquired in consideration of the compulsory acquisition of the land. Other damages sustained by the person interested such as taking of any standing crops or trees or tube wells which are on the land at the time of Collector taking possession can certainly be taken into consideration while determining the compensation but that will be in addition of the market value of the land. The solatium is awarded on the market value of the land and not on the other damages, therefore, the reference Court committed error in awarding solatium for tube wells. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/State next contended that the Court below committed error in awarding interest on the enhanced amount. 16. The contention is not acceptable. Section 34 of the Act embodies the rule of equity, justice and good conscience and even if Section 34 would not have been on the statute book, interest could be awarded. Provisions of Section 34 are mandatory and it is necessary to comply with the provisions. The interest is provided as a relief to the landowner from whose possession the land is acquired but compensation is paid long after taking possession. Provisions of Section 34 are mandatory and it is necessary to comply with the provisions. The interest is provided as a relief to the landowner from whose possession the land is acquired but compensation is paid long after taking possession. The gap between the taking of possession and the payment of compensation is the criteria or the consideration for the purpose of grant of interest. The interest is statutory in nature because it is fixed at a certain rate, therefore, the Court below committed no error in awarding the interest. 17. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the trial Court committed error in awarding the whole cost of the tube well by way of compensation. Respondent Narendra Singh Shall be entitled to Rs. 15,875.81/- instead of Rs. 21,167.75/-. Respondents Umesh and others are entitled to Rs. 16,154.25/-instead of Rs, 21,539/-, respondent Jaideo is entitled to Rs. 15875.81/- instead of Rs. 21,167.75/- and respondent Kusum Kumari is entitled to Rs. 14,354.96/- instead of Rs. 19,139.70/- i.e. ?th of the value of tube well assessed by the Court below and not the whole amount of the value as assessed by it. No solatium shall be payable on this ?th amount as modified by this Court on the value of the tube well. However, the interest on this amount shall be payable as awarded by the reference Court. 18. With these findings, all the four appeals are partly allowed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Final Result : Partly Allowed