Judgment :- Claimants are the appellants. This appeal arises against the award dated 05.01.1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, in L.A.O.P.No.179 of 1985, whereby the claimants were awarded with compensation, after fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1000/-per cent. The claimants made a claim at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per cent. 2. An extent of 1.61 acres in Survey No. 570 in Mogappair village, is the acquired land along with other lands for the purpose of Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. For the said purpose, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was published in the Government Gazette dated 111. 1975. Even that Notification contains this particular acquired land of an extent of 1.61 acres in Survey No.570 along with the extents of other lands in the same survey number. Possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 15.09.1983. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer had relied on the sale deeds dated 04.05.1973 and 05.05.1973, which consist of an extent of 0.93 cents in Survey No.255 and 1.05 acres in 227 respectively. Considering the fact that they are wet lands, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.210/-per cent. After completing all the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award No.14 of 1983 on 15.09.1983, by fixing the market value of the land at Rs.210/- per cent as against the claim of Rs.3,000/- per cent. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the Claimants, the matter was referred to Sub Court, Poonamallee, which resulted in LA.O.P.No.179 of 1985. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, after having gone into the entire materials, has fixed the market value at Rs.1000/- per cent following the earlier award dated 31.08.1987 passed in L.A.O.P.No.18 of 1984. The said award was marked as Ex.C-1 before the court below. 5. Mr. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submitted a copy of the judgment in Appeal Nos.579 of 1989 batch, which were filed against the award passed in LAOP.Nos.176, 177,195,197 of 1985,5,8,9,10 and 11 of 1986. That order revealed that it is under the same 4(1) Notification, the entire land including the subject matter of this appeal was acquired. 5. Mr. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submitted a copy of the judgment in Appeal Nos.579 of 1989 batch, which were filed against the award passed in LAOP.Nos.176, 177,195,197 of 1985,5,8,9,10 and 11 of 1986. That order revealed that it is under the same 4(1) Notification, the entire land including the subject matter of this appeal was acquired. As mentioned earlier, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 111. 1975 for Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Madras-35. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly fixed the market value at Rs.1000/-per cent following the award dated 31.08.1987 passed in LAOP.No.18 of 1984 and that market value was confirmed in different appeals, namely, Appeal No.579 of 1989 batch of cases arose from LAOP. Nos. 176,177,195,197 of 1985,5,8,9,10 and 11 of 1986 by the learned single Judge of this Court, by a common judgment dated 20.11.1988. But in the judgment of the above appeals, interim stay was granted only upon the market value already fixed; that was granted by virtue of section 23(1-A) of the Act. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Prem Nath Kapur ..Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited ( (1996) 2 Scc 71 ) And Tehri Hydro Development Corporation ..Vs..S.P.Singh (1997) 1 Scc 249 ), wherein the interest awardable was only upon the market value. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on the subsequent decision in Sunder Vs. Union of India Reported In (2001)7 SCC 211 ), wherein it was observed as follows: "We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof". Thus, the components of compensation are not only the market value under Section 23 (1) of the Act but the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as well as solatium under section 23(2). Thus, the components of compensation are not only the market value under Section 23 (1) of the Act but the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) as well as solatium under section 23(2). It is needless to say that all these components of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. These aspects have been correctly gone into by the learned Subordinate Judge in awarding market value, additional amount, solatium and interest also. There is no ground made out for further enhancement and the Government has also not filed any appeal. 8. In consideration of the materials produced and the reasoning above mentioned, I am of the view that such fixation by the learned Subordinate Judge is proper and correct. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.