The court affirmed compensation adjustments in land acquisition cases, emphasizing procedural fairness and statutory benefits for solatium and interest.

All these Appeals arise out of a common acquisition award and raise similar questions, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

2. An extent of Ac.43.89 cents of land, situated in various survey numbers of Badmpudi Village, Unguturu Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of formation of a four-lane road from Km 80 to 152 of National Highway No.5. This acquisition was conducted as per the requisition given by the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Rajamundry.

3. The acquisition was done under the provisions of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 [for short “the Act, 1956”]. After following the necessary procedure, the land was acquired and an award, dated 19.03.2003 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Eluru, in award No.20/2003. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, reference to the Arbitrator was sought for enhancement of the said compensation. Upon reference, the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, West Godavari, passed an award, vide R.Dis.No.26/2005, dated 29.09.2005. The Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, West Godavari, after summarizing the main grounds raised by the affected persons had held that the market value of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was a fair market value and refused to interfere with the award, dated 19.03.2003. Aggrieved by this award, the appellants herein moved various original petitions, before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, under Sections 30 & 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26/1996).

4. The learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari, after hearing both sides, had enhanced the compensation by directing re-fixation of the market value from Rs.1,40,000/- per acre to Rs.1,45,000/- per acre and for payment of certain consequential benefits including interest in term of Section- 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act, 1894”] as well as solatium @ 15% of the market value.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, dated 22.01.2007, in all the appeals, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present set of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

6. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there was a consistent failure of the principles of natural justice in as much as the District Collector did not give an opportunity of hearing after the claim petitions had been filed and that the Principal District Judge, West Godavari also disregarded this ground, when it was brought to the notice of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari that appropriate opportunity was not given to the appellants.

7. However, Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants could not place any material before this Court to demonstrate that such an issue had been raised before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari and had been ignored by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept this contention. 8. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellants would also raise an additional ground that the appellants had not been granted solatium of 30% of the market value, as required under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and only solatium of 15% of the market value was granted by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari and the same is not in accord with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors, [(2019) 9 SCC 304], read with the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case o