( 1 ) THE appeal by the claimant is wholly misconceived. The case of theappellant is that when the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act was published in the District Gazelle on July 9, 1981 acquiring Ac. 0-43 cents of land in R. S. No. 554/3b. 554/6b and 554/9b together with a building situated therein in Khandavalli village of Tanuku taluk, West Godavari District, the Court below ought to have taken it as compulsory acquisition and ought to have awarded enhanced interest and solatium as per the Amendment Act. He claimed in the appeal rs. 33,100/- towards solatium and interest. I find that the contention is wholly untenable.

( 2 ) IN Ex. A. 1 statement issued by the claimant dated November 4, 1980he admitted that in the year 1977 he had agreed for sale of the building and the land as per the estimate given by the Randb Department as per the prevailing rate and that he would not claim any compensation for the seven cents of land. Pursuant thereto, the Randb Department estimated the value and fixed the market value at Rs. 77,000/ -. A reference was made by the District social Welfare Officer requesting the Government to accord permission to purchase the building by private negotiations and to sanction the amount of rs. 77,000/ -. Accordingly, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 418 dated august 6, 1980 according permission to purchase the buiiding and to pay compensation of Rs. 77,000/- under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and also made budgetary provision. The appellant in his statement Ex. A-3 before the R. D. O. has admitted thus : "the State Government have agreed to acquire my building for rs. 77,000/- for hostel purposes and issued the G. O. I am prepared to hand over the building at any time under the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. " thus it is clear that the claimant agreed by negotiations to part with the possession of the building as per the demand made by the R. D. O. The Randb department estimated the building at Rs. 77,000/-

( 3 ) BOARD Standing Order 90, paragraph (2) postulates that even withregard to acquisition of land by private negotiations, it is mandatory that the formal procedure under the Land Acquisition Act should be intiated for acquisition of the land for Government purpose. Therefore, merely because the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act, it does not mean that it was a compulsory acquisition and the procedure contemplated under Secs. 11 and 12 are to be followed in passing the award.

( 4 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitledto interest and solatium as claimed. No doubt, he is entitled to interest from the date of taking possession till the date of actual payment. It is stated that the amount was deposited on 7-4-1983 and the claimant received it. The Court below under Section 23 of the Act, has awarded interest at 12% on Rs. 77,000/- from the date of notification till the date of award, viz. , 4-4-1983 and rejected the claim of interest at 15% under Section 34 (a) of the amendment Act. It also further granted interest at 9% on the interest amount of Rs. 16,041-67 Ps from 4-4-1983 till the date of payment of that amount. As already stated, the appellant has received the compensation amount on April 7, 1983. Therefore, he is not entitled to any further interest or solatium under Sec. 34 (a) of Amendment Act, than what was granted by the Court below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document