The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the appellants to additional interest on the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order 09.02.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent herein under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) against a judgment and award dated 02.01.1999 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.P. No. 72 of 1997 was allowed in part.

3. Certain basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

42 acres 08 guntas of land situated in Hanamkonda Village was acquired for a public purpose, namely, excavation of Kakatiya canal. A draft notification was published in the District Gazette under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 4 acres 10 guntas of the land in Survey No.622 on 16.03.1979. Possession of the said land was taken over on 18.05.1979. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.06.1988 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.75,000/- per acre. The said award, however, was confined to 1 acre 5 guntas only as the balance 3 acres 5 guntas of land was held to be belonging to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A writ petition filed thereagainst, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 10387 of 1989, was allowed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by a judgment and order dated 17.11.1989 directing the Collector to refer the dispute to the Court in terms of Section 30 of the Act. However, later on, it was found by the respondent that the entire 4 acres 10 guntas of land belonged to the appellants.

4. The Parliament enacted the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 which came into effect on or about 24.09.1986. As in terms of the said amendment, an award was to be passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of the notification, another notification was issued by the Collector in respect of the said 3 acres 5 guntas of land on or about 23.12.1991. In respect of the said area, another award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the same rate, namely, Rs.75,000/- per acre with all the statutory benefits except additional market value. When a writ petition was filed before the High Court by Appellants, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 16220 of 1994, by its judgment dated 18.12.1995 the High Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to grant additional market value in terms of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act and interest as per Section 34 thereof from the date of taking possession, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof a supplemental award was passed on 12.06.1998. A reference was made by Appellants in terms of Section 18 of the Act and by a judgment and order dated 02.01.1999, the Principal Senior Civil Judge awarded compensation for acquisition of the said land @ Rs.60/- per square yard as against the claim of Rs.150/- per square yard. However, the learned Judge granted additional market value and interest from the date of taking possession till the date of award, holding :

"In the result it is ordered as follows :

i) The Claimant is entitled to market value of the acquired land at Rs. 60/- per sq. yard.

ii) The Claimant is entitled to solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value.

iii) The Claimants are also entitled to additional market value at 12% P.A. on the enhanced market value from 1.05.1979 to 06.05.1994.

iv) The Claimants is entitled to interest @ 9 % p.a. for one year from 18.05.1979 and @ 15% p.a., thereafter on the enhanced market value till the payment is made or deposited The reference is answered accordingly."

5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by Respondent and by reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court held that Appellants are not entitled to additional market value and interest from the date of taking of the possession till the date of the award.

6. Mrs. K. Amareshwari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants, would submit that having regard to the fact that Section 23(1)(a) of the Act was introduced by the Amending Act 6