JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALA, J.:- In this appeal by special leave, directed against the Judgment and Decree dated June 19, 1990 in Appeal No. 2234 of 1986 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, enhanced compensation for irrigation wells of the agricultural lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - the Act is claimed by the owners of those lands - the appellants.

2. Several extents of agricultural lands comprised in different survey numbers of Nedunoor Village, Karimnagar District of the State of Andhra Pradesh were required for submergence under the waters of Maneru Dam. Those agricultural lands were acquired pursuant to Notification published in the State Gazette dated February 2, 1979, as required by Section 4(1) of the Act. The agricultural lands so acquired were dry lands, single crop wet lands, and double crop wet lands. In some of those agricultural lands, there were irrigation wells, as well.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), by an award made under Section 11 of the Act determined the market value of the said agricultural lands and the said irrigation wells separately and awarded compensation payable thereunder, to the concerned owners of the acquired lands. Nature of crops grown on the lands, that is, dry crop, wet single crop or wet double crop while formed the basis for the LAO to determine the market value of the agricultural lands, estimate of the cost of construction of each irrigation well prepared by the Public Works Department formed the basis for the LAO to determine the market value of such irrigation wells.

4. The Court of Subordinate Judge at Karimnagar, the Civil Court, which considered the question of enhanced compensation payable to the owners for their agricultural lands and irrigation wells, on references received by him under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced not only the market value of dry lands to Rs. 4,500/- per acre, single crop wet lands to Rs. 7,500/- per acre, and double crop wet lands to Rupees 10,000/- per acre as against the market value of Rs. 2,400/- per acre, Rupees 5,400/- per acre and Rs. 8,100/- per acre respectively determined for such agricultural lands by the LAO, but also enhanced the market value of some of the irrigation wells according to the cost of construction of each of them as estimated by a retired Town Planning Supervisor (P.W.3), as against their market value determined by the LAO on the basis of their estimates prepared by the Public Works Department, and of the remaining irrigation wells by increasing their market value as determined by the LAO by 75 percent. Consequently, the Civil Court made an award under Section 26 of the Act granting the enhanced market value of the acquired agricultural lands and enhanced market value of the irrigation wells, and further granting solatium on such market value at 30 per cent and interest on compensation at 9 per cent for the first year from the date of taking possession and for the successful years up to the date of payment of compensation at the rate of 15 percent per annum.

5. But the said award of the Civil Court by which compensation payable for the acquired agricultural lands and irrigation wells had been enhanced, was questioned by the LAO in an appeal filed against it before the High Court. However, the market value of the agricultural lands, as enhanced by the award of the Civil Court was not interfered with by the High Court on its view that the enhanced market value given by the Civil Court for similar lands in its earlier two awards had been confirmed by it in appeals filed therefrom and the decisions in those appeals had become final. When it came to the market value of irrigation wells enhanced by the Civil Court, the High Court found that such enhanced market value for the wells ought not to have been by the Civil Court on the basis of estimates of costs of wells prepared by a retired Town Planning Supervisor (P.W.3). Consequently, it refused to uphold the enhanced market value given for irrigatio