The main legal point established is that claimants are entitled to interest on the aggregate amount, including solatium, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act and relevant case law.

1. This appeal arises out of an award passed in L.A.O.P.No.89 of 1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipettai dated 19. 2001.

The Government have acquired 23. 0 Hectares of land in Survey Nos 149/3,149/4, 149/5,149/6,149/8 and 149/9(b) in Melpakkam Village, Arakkonam Taluk for the purpose of allotting house plots for the people belonging to the Adi Dravidar Community who does not have possess any house site.

2. After following the procedures and formalities , the learned Land Acquisition Officer has published Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamill Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to Act) for the Government gazette on 20.4.1988 and also published the notice in the vernacular dailies on 24. 1988 and on the same date by way of affixture and also be beat of tom tom in the public places of the concerned village. On the basis of the data lands, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed and awarded the compensation as Rs.100/-per cent for the lands acquired. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed their objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.

3. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal,the third claimant has examined himself as C.W.1 besides one S.Duraisamy, the vendor under Ex C1 sale deed dated 5. 1987 as C.W.2 . On the side of the claimants, Exs C1 and C2 were marked. On the side of the referring Officer, one Devadoss, an Assistant of the Department of Adi Dravidar was examined as D.W1 and exhibited Exs R1 to R5.

4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of Ex C1, sale deed dated 5. 1987 executed by C.W.2 in favour of one Jayapaul in respect of S.No.152/34 measuring 6 cents has not fixed the compensation as Rs.1526/-per cent even though the land sold under Ex C1 is about 100 feet away from the data lands taking into consideration for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. Ex C1 was rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that there was no material placed by the claimants to show that both the lands sold under Ex C1 and the lands acquired by the Government are of same nature having some potentiality. The sale deed relating to the land was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the ground that the lands acquired by the Government are near the residential area but the lands sold under Ex R2 is near a tank by name Ariyankottai. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has accepted in its Judgment that the land sold under Ex C1 is in all respects similar to the lands acquired and is also fit for construction. Even R.W.1 has accepted in his evidence that the data land is near a tank by name Ariyankottai and it is not fit for construction. So under such circumstances, the appeal preferred by the Government for deduction of the compensation from Rs 710/- per cent cannot sustainable. Even though the land sold under Ex C1 is nearer to the lands acquired by the Government and also having same potentiality to the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Officer has not fixed the compensation adopting the value fixed under Ex C1 for the lands sold under the said sale deed. The classification of the land sold under Ex C1 is the Punja Land. So even if 1/3rd deduction is given value for the land sold under Ex C1, the compensation for the land acquired is to be fixed as Rs.1000/-per cent. Even though, the claimants have claimed Rs.2000/- per cent in their claim petition in the cross objection, they restricted the same to Rs.1000/- per cent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/cross objectors relying on a decision reported in Sunder-vs- Union of India(2001(4) CTC 434) would contend that while awarding the compensation, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has failed to award interest on solatium and also for the additional compensation which is against the ratio decidenti cited above wherein the rele