Judgment :- Common Judgment: 1. A.S.No.74 of 2008: This Appeal is filled against the judgment and passed by the Additional District and Sessions court (FTC), Tirupattur, Vellore District in L.A.O.P.No. 129 of 2002 dated 211. 2003. A.S.No.563 of 2009: This Appeal is filled against the judgment and passed by the Additional District and Sessions court (FTC), Tirupattur, Vellore District in L.A.O.P.No. 209 of 2002 dated 211. 2003. 2. As the point to be determined in both the Appeals is one and the same and also the facts are almost similar, a common order is being passed to dispose of both the appeals. For the sake of convenience, I am referring to the facts contained in A.S.No.563 of 2009. 3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District in L.A.O.P.No. 209 of 2004. The Land Acquisition Officer is the appellant before this Court. 4. An extent of 0.08.2 hectares of lands belonging to the respondent herein in S.No.211/1 was acquired by the appellant by fixing the compensation at Rs. 3,097/-. Not satisfied by the amount determined as compensation by the appellant, the respondent herein sought for reference to the sub court under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Before the trial court, the respondent herein stated that the lands were situated adjacent to National Highways and they should be considered as House sites. In fact the lands were acquired by the Government for providing house sites to the most backward people. According to the respondent herein, the appellant wrongly determined the land price by considering the lands as punja lands, whereas the land value fixed by considering them as house sites. The respondent also pointed out that the lands were situated between Vaniyambedi and Ambur Municipalities and they were surrounded by factories, houses, Government offices, Electricity Board offices, Banks and other shops. According to the respondent herein, the lands were situated in a very vantage position and all these aspects were neglected by the appellant herein before determining the compensation for the lands acquired. The respondent further stated that the appellant fixed the land price on the basis of a model land which was situated in S.No.275/2A and the said land in S.No. 275/2A were lying further away from the lands acquired from the respondent. The respondent further stated that the appellant fixed the land price on the basis of a model land which was situated in S.No.275/2A and the said land in S.No. 275/2A were lying further away from the lands acquired from the respondent. In fact, the respondent relied on a sale deed registered in Doc.No.1669/90 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Ambur and by that sale deed the lands situated in S.No.192/2 which were lying on the western side were sold for a price of Rs.10/-per sq.ft and therefore, the appellant ought to have fixed the compensation on the basis of the sale deed registered in Doc.No.1669/90. Hence, the respondent sought for an enhanced compensation by considering the value of the land on the basis of the sale deed (Doc.No.1669/90) and the respondent also sought for a sum of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. for the lands acquired from him. 6. The appellant herein defended the L.A.O.P. by contending that the land value has been properly arrived at and proper compensation has been determined by the Government. 7. The court below framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the value determined by the appellant herein for the lands acquired is correct or not as on the date of 4 (1) Notification? 2. Whether the respondent herein is entitled to enhanced compensation or not? .8. Before the Court below, the respondent herein examined himself as C.W.1 and exhibits A1 to A3 were marked through him. The land Acquisition officer was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B1 to B5 were marked through him. On the basis of the evidence let in and on the basis of the documents made available, the Court below accepted the submission of the respondent herein that the lands were to be treated as House Sites and not as Punja lands. The Court below has also found that Ex.A2 which is the sale deed (Doc.No.1664/90) should have been considered by the appellant herein for arriving at the land price. The court below has also considered that the lands of the respondent herein were part of the other lands situated in other S.Nos. and those land owners also approached the Sub Court in L.A.O.P.No. 8/95, 9/95 and 20/95 and the Sub Court by judgment and decree dated 212. 1997 determined the compensation payable by the Government to the land owners at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. and those land owners also approached the Sub Court in L.A.O.P.No. 8/95, 9/95 and 20/95 and the Sub Court by judgment and decree dated 212. 1997 determined the compensation payable by the Government to the land owners at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. and accordingly, the Court below arrived at the land value of the respondent at Rs.5/-per sq.ft. Consequently, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 67,479/- and after deducting the amount already paid by the appellant i.e. a sum of Rs.3,097/-, the court below fixed the balance amount of Rs.64, 382/-. The Court below has also directed the appellant to pay interest at 90 per annum, for the enhanced compensation and aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition officer preferred the above Appeal. 9. Heard Thiru Ravi, Special Government Pleader for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also considered the entire documents available on record including the judgments relied on by the counsel. .10. The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is as follows: .Whether the Court below has correctly arrived at the compensation payable by the appellant or the same is to be interfered with by this Court? .11. A perusal of the records including the judgment of the Court below will make it very clear that the Court below has correctly found that the lands are House sites and not punja lands as decided by the Government. In fact, R.W.1 himself admitted the fact that the other land owners whose lands are also acquired along with the respondent’s lands approached the Sub Court and the Sub court on 212. 1997 enhanced the compensation by fixing the land value at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. This fact is an admitted one and this is not disputed also. In fact, the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.9/95 was marked by the respondent as Ex.C3. The only objection that was raised by the appellant before the Court below is that, Appeals in 584 to 586/98 were filed by the Government against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court and therefore, the same has not reached its finality. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly considered the submissions made by the respondent herein and by taking into consideration the value fixed by the Sub Court on 212. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly considered the submissions made by the respondent herein and by taking into consideration the value fixed by the Sub Court on 212. 1997 for the lands which were also acquired along with the respondent’s lands and which were lying in the same place contiguously, awarded enhanced compensation by fixing the land price at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. as has been done by the Sub Court in the previous L.A.O.Ps’ and therefore, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in fixing of the land price by the Court below at Rs.5/-per sq.ft. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the knowledge of the court that the appeals filed in A.S.No.584 to 586 of 1998 before this Court were already dismissed by this Court on 30.6.2008 and thereby confirmed the land value fixed by the Court below. In fact, the judgment of this court was reported in (The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur Vs usha @ Govindamma & others) and a copy of the same was also provided by the learned counsel for the respondent. 12. A perusal of the above judgment will show that this Court gave its stamp of approval to the value of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. fixed by the Court below and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 13. In such circumstances, I am bound to follow the decision of this Court reported in (cited supra). It is an admitted fact that the lands acquired from the respondent herein were lying contiguously with the lands of others which was the subject matter of A.S.No.584 to 586 of 1998 and therefore, the same land value is to be determined and given to all the land owners whose lands were also acquired by the appellant. Hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has failed to give interest for the solatium amount and therefore, he prays that interest should be awarded by this court, for the solatium amount also. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (4) C.T.C. 434 (Sunder Vs Union of India). In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (4) C.T.C. 434 (Sunder Vs Union of India). This was seriously objected to by the learned Special Government Pleader that no appeal or any cross appeal was filed by the respondent against the Tribunal’s award and therefore, no interest should be granted by this Court for the solatium amount as sought for by the learned counsel for the respondent. 15. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader. It is true that no appeal nor any cross Appeal was filed by the respondent against the award of the Tribunal, but, a Five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2001 (4) C.T.C. 434 (Cited supra) held that compensation awarded would mean amount of compensation worked out in accordance with provisions of sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 including all the sub sections thereof. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: 24. The proviso to section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “If such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year “on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry”. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose or payment or interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted. 25. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose or payment or interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted. 25. We may also point out that different High Courts have taken the same view in the following decisions. 26. G. Venkatesh V. Special Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1975 Kar. 95 , B. Ravinder Reddy V. Special Deputy Collector, and Acquisition (Industries), Hyderabad, AIR 1981 A.P. 381 , State of Haryana V. Smt. Kailashwati & ors., AIR 1980 P & H 117 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. V. Muniswamy Reddy, AIR 1993 Kar.77. 27. We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Kailashwti and ors. AIR 1980 P & H 117. “Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then, from the plain terms of section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed, the language of 9.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well”. 28. 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. The reference is answered accordingly.” 16. From the above, it is very clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law in this regard by holding that the land owner is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including the solatium. The reference is answered accordingly.” 16. From the above, it is very clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law in this regard by holding that the land owner is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including the solatium. If that being so, the same could be granted by this Court in the above appeal even if no appeal or Cross appeal was filed by the land owners. 17. A perusal of the judgment of the court below will make it very clear that 9% and 15% interest was directed on the amount excluding the 30% solatium amount, it is not in consonance with the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I direct that 9% and 15% interests is to be paid on the solatium amount also and to that extent, the order of the tribunal is modified. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the above modification. A.S.No. 74 of 2008: 19. This appeal is also filed by the Land Acquisition officer and the Lands acquired are also the lands lying contiguously with the lands which are the subject matter of A.S.No.563 of 2009. Here also, the Land Acquisition Tribunal determined the value of the compensation by deciding the land value at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. and accordingly, enhanced compensation has been done in the case of A.S.No.563 of 2009. 20. In the light of the decision I have already arrived at in A.S.No.563 of 2009, this appeal is also to be dismissed on the basis of the judgment of this court reported in by upholding the compensation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, A.S.No.74 of 2008 is also dismissed. No cost. 22. Here also, I direct that interest of 9% and 15% as the case may be is to be given for the solatium amount also by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (4) C.T.C. 434 (cited supra). 23. In the result, A.S.No.74 of 2008 is also dismissed with the above modification.