JUDGMENT :

M.LAXMAN, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order and decree dated 30.06.2000 in O.P.No.140 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (for short, reference Court), wherein and whereby the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of three different categories was enhanced from Rs.12,000/- per acre to Rs.24,000/- per acre, Rs.7,000/-per acre to Rs.14,000/- per acre and Rs.9,000/- per acre to Rs.18,000/- per acre in respect of Hasanparthy, Pembarthy and Keshavapoor villages respectively for the acquired lands belonging to the respondents herein and granted other statutory benefits.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the claimants in O.P.No.140 of 1995.

3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondents herein are the owners of land to an extent of Ac.14-20 guntas, situated at Hasanparthy, Pembarthy and Keshavapoor villages. The lands were acquired for excavation of 1R/DBM-23 canal. Initially, preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) were issued on 12.03.1982 and 13.03.1982 by invoking urgency clause and possession of the lands was taken over on 08.08.1984. Later, the said proceedings were lapsed for various reasons, which are unnecessary for the disposal of present appeal.

4. Subsequently, fresh preliminary notifications were issued on 14.06.1989 and 15.06.1989, and after considering the claims of the respondents/claimants, the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award dated 31.03.1993 fixing market value of Rs.12,000/- per acre in respect of Hasanaparthy village, Rs.7,000/- per acre in respect of Pembarthy village and Rs.9,000/- in respect of Keshavapoor village, as against the claims of the respondents for Rs.70,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondents herein sought reference for enhancement of compensation.

5. Before the reference Court, the respondents/claimants to support their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-4. The appellant/Land Acquisition Officer, to support his case, examined R.W.1 and relied upon Ex.B-1.

6. The reference Court, by relying upon Exs.A-3 and A-4 and also the oral evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, doubled the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the lands acquired in the said three villages. The reference Court also granted other statutory benefits i.e., additional amount of compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of taking possession of the lands till the date of the Award, and also interest for the first year @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession and subsequently @ 15% per annum till the amounts are deposited with the reference Court and also granted solatium of 30%. Challenging the same, the Land Acquisition Officer filed the present appeal.

7. Though the present appeal has been filed challenging the enhancement of market value as well as grant of statutory benefits either under Section 23(1-A) or 34 of the Act from the date of possession under the invalid notification, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals is confined his arguments only to the extent of grant of statutory benefits from the date of possession of the lands under invalid notifications. We have also on merits found no reason to interfere with the findings of reference Court on fixation of market value.

8. The only point that arises in the present appeal, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents, is whether the Land Acquisition Officer/reference Court is justified in granting statutory benefits from the date of taking possession of the lands under invalid notifications?

9. The learned Government Pleader Mr. Sripathi Rajeswar Rao has contended that the reference Court has granted additional amount of compensation @ 12% per annum, without any statutory support, from the date of taking posse