judgment

B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.- Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for determining the compensation payable for certain lands acquired under the provisions of the Act.

3. Villages Bhorgarh, Kureni and Mamurpur are located side by side and the lands situated in these villages were used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. Under the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 there were certain restrictions on land usage due to which the lands could only be used for agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and allied uses. In the master plan the lands were shown in the green belt. By a notification dated 8-12-1982, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, the Central Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section ll-A modified the master plan for Delhi. The modifications made were as under:

"(i) The land use of an area measuring 21.043 hectares (52 acres) located near Narela town and situated on the west of railway line to

R-P-M/30289/S

Ambala is changed from Agricultural Green Belt to Commercial (Warehousing and Storage Depots).

(ii) The land use of an area measuring about 21.043 hectares (52 acres) located near Village Ghevra and situated on the north of railway line to Rohtak is changed from Agricultural Green Belt to Commercial (Warehousing and Storage Depots)."

4. On 2-6-1983, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby the lands for certain parcels situated within the said area were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 22-7-1983. Further proceedings under the Act ensued and on 5-9-1983, the Land Acquisition Collector made an award in each of the cases. The Collector categorised the lands falling for acquisition into three blocks, namely, A, B and C. He awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 per bigha for land in Block A, Rs 8000 per bigha for land in Block B and Rs 5000 per bigha for land in Block C. He also awarded compensation for wells, trees and structures. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants moved for references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dated

d 12-3-1999 enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs 36,300 per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also granted other reliefs available under the Act.

5. The claimants filed regular first appeals under Section 54 of the Act

questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Reference Court.

The High Court assessed the market value of the lands of the claimants at Rs 82,255 per bigha. It also directed solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment of compensation and on additional amount @ 12% on the market value from the date of notification till the possession. It was also directed that if interest was held payable on solatium in the case pending before the Supreme Court, such interest will be paid to the claimants.

6. In Civil Appeals Nos. 5708-09 of 2002, the appellant claimants have impugned the judgment of the High Court while the Union of India is in appeal in Civil Appeals Nos. 8591-92 of 2003 and civil appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 21335, 21342-43, 23385 of 2002, 1632 and 12968 of 2003.

7. The only question argued before us was the assessment of the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. No other issue was canvassed. The High Court has correctly found that the topog