NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5797 OF 2002

R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. .......Appellants

Versus

The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line .......Respondent

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5835 OF 2002

Soundararajan (Dead) through L.Rs. .......Appellants

Versus

The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line .......Respondent

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 5.10.2001 of the  

Madras High Court whereby the compensation determined by the Reference  

Court vide award dated 2.4.1993 passed in LAOP Nos. 29 and 30 of 1988  

was substantially reduced.

2. On a requisition sent by Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern  

Railway for the acquisition of land for construction of Karur-Dindigul Broad  

Gauge  Line,  the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  issued  notification  under  

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), which  

was published in the official Gazette dated 30.5.1984 for the acquisition of  

19.72 acres land including land comprised in survey Nos. 658/2, 663/3B,  

664, 665/1, 667/1 and 668 owned by R. Saragapani and Soundararajan (both  

of  whom are  now represented  by  their  legal  representatives)  situated  in  

village  Vembur,  Vadasandur  Taluk,  Dindigul  District.   The  Special  

Tahsildar inspected the acquired land and submitted report dated 6.1.1987 to  

District  Revenue  Officer,  Anna,  District  Dindigul  indicating  therein  that  

value of the acquired land and coconut trees available at the site including  

30% solatium would be Rs.3,70,190.50.   

3. Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  Special  Tahsildar,  Karur-Dindigul  

Broad  Gauge  Railway  Line,  Unit  II,  Dindigul  (for  short,  `the  Land  

Acquisition Officer’) passed award dated 19.5.1987 and declared that the  

landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre.  

He also awarded Rs.160/- per yielding coconut tree and Rs.30/- per young  

coconut tree (trees with flowers and flowering stage).

2

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer,  

the land owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act.  Thereupon,  

the  Collector  made  reference  to  the  Court  for  determination  of  the  

compensation  payable  to  the  landowners.   The  same  were  registered  as  

LAOP Nos.  29 and 30 of  1988.    In what was described as the counter  

statements filed by them, the landowners claimed that they were entitled to  

compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.  They also claimed that  

the coconut trees were capable of giving crop for 50 years at the rate of  

Rs.500/- per annum.

5. During the pendency of reference, the Reference Court appointed an  

Advocate Commissioner for inspection of the acquired land to ascertain the  

number of trees and their age.  The Court Commissioner took the assistance  

of  Village  Administrative  Officer  and  Shri  P.  Nagarajan,  Agricultural  

Development  Officer  Panchayath  Union,  Vedasandur  and  inspected  the  

acquired  land on 7.11.1992 after  giving notice  to  both  the  parties.   The  

landowners and their  Advocate  Shri  K.  Subramanian were present  at  the  

time of inspection but none appeared on behalf of the respondent.   After  

inspecting the site, Shri P. Nagarajan submitted report dated 7.11.1992 with  

the finding that the trees were 17 years old and would give better yield for a  

further period of 70 years.  He also opined that each tree will give a total   

income of Rs.29,890/-.  Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner submitted  

3

report dated 20.11.1992 to the Reference Court endorsing the report of Shri  

P. Nagarajan.

6. The  Reference Court first  considered the question as to how many  

trees existed on the acquired land, referred to the evidence of the parties as  

also the Advocate Commissioner’s report and observed:

“What  is  the  number  of  coconut  trees  present  in  the  lands  acquired in L.A.O.P. No.29/1988?

It is found that the number of trees mentioned in the award is  wrong Exhibit R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit  R6 would show that the same is wrong. Exhibit R6 is the report  filed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  after  inspection  on  06.01.1987. It is shown in the report that there are 9 yielding  and 46 young coconut trees in S.F. No. 658/2, that in S.F. No.  665/1 there are 6 yielding coconut trees, 59 coconut trees with  flowers,  199 young  coconut  trees,  that  there  are  11  coconut  trees in S.F. No. 668, that there are 56 coconut trees and 6 very  small  coconut trees of not yielding and no value in S.F. No.  667/1. Thus it is shown in the above said document separately  the yielding coconut trees, coconut trees yielding stage, young  trees, nut yielding value less coconut trees. Hence the number  of  trees as  mentioned in the award is  not  correct.  When the  railway line was being laid under this broad guage plan few  coconut trees were cut. Exhibit R8 is the letter dated 24.02.1987  written by the railway department to the Special Tahsildar. It is  stated in the said letter that 13 coconut trees were cut and 94  young coconut trees had dried/perished due to the hot sun and  want of water. Thus 107 coconut trees had been destroyed. The  property had been taken into possession is seen as 19.05.1987.  Thus  107  coconut  trees  has  been  destroyed  before  taking  possession,  due  to  laying  the  railway  line  by  the  railway  department. It has to be seen as to how many trees belonging to  whom had been destroyed.  Exhibit  R1O would render  much  help in that extent. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned  in Exhibit R7 as follows:

4

"It  has  been stated  that  the  coconut  trees  in  the  place where the present broad guage line has been  laid were cut by the railway department and then  the railway line laid up".

Further  the  Village  Administrative  Officer  in  his  statement  would state that it was true that coconut trees were cut but he  does not know how much trees were cut. Therefore it can be  confirmed after enquiring that there were more trees then that  are present now. It is further stated in Page 6 that it has to be  considered that 9 trees were cut in S.F. No. 658/2, that in S.F.  No. 665/1: 12 trees were cut, 15 trees were cut in S.F. No. 668,  37 trees were cut in S.F. No. 667/1. RW1 in his evidence has  admitted in Exhibit R10 that it was stated that 64 trees were  present in S.F. No. 658 and 9 trees were cut, 15 trees were cut  in S.F. No. 668 and 11 were remaining. That there was a total  of  276  coconut  trees  in  S.F.  No.  665/1  the  trees  cut  were 12, that in S.F. No. 667/1, total of 99 trees cut were 37. Hence  based on Exhibit R6 and on comparing Exhibits R7, R10 and  the admission of RW1 the coconut trees present in the land has  to be seen calculation. S.F. No. 658/2 belongs to the claimant in  L.A.O.P. No. 29/88 and the claimant  in L.A.O.P. No. 30/88.  Hence taking into account, what has been stated in the award, I  am allotting the balance to L.A.O.P. No. 30/88. Therefore in  S.F. No. 658/2 there are 9 yielding trees and 13 young coconut  trees.  In S.F.  No. 665/1 according to Exhibit  R6 there are 6  yielding trees, 59 flowering trees, young coconut trees 199. 12  coconut trees which were cut were in this number. I included  this cut down trees with young trees. Therefore the young trees  are 199 + 12 = 211. Similarly in S.F. No. 668 there are 11 trees  along  with  15  cut  trees  the  total  is  26.(ie)  the  young  trees  present in this survey field.  It is shown in Exhibit R6 that 56  young coconut trees are present in S.F. No.667/1. It has also  been stated that 6 coconut trees do not have any value in both  L.A.O.P.s 29/88 and 30/88. 37 trees were cut from it, including  the  said  trees  the  total  comes  to  93  trees.  The  statement  in  Exhibit R6 that there are 6 coconut trees of no value in S.F. No.  667/1,  is  accepted.  Thus  after  taking  into  consideration  the  character of the coconut trees the cut trees are included along  with the number of young coconut trees.”

5

7. The Reference Court then adverted to the question as to what would  

be  the  annual  income of  the  coconut  trees  and held that  average  annual  

income of one tree would be Rs.200/-.  The process of reasoning by which  

the Reference Court arrived at this conclusion is reflected in paragraph 24 of  

its award, which is extracted below:

“24. The annual income of a coconut tree must now be seen  PW1 would state that a good variety of coconut tree will yeild  one in 45 days, that about 30 to 45 nuts can be fot, and there  will be 8 harvest in a year and 100 nuts would sell from Rs.  350/- to Rs. 500/-. PW2 would state that the coconut trees had  grown very well, that they yeilded good nuts, that it belongs to  the fall variety, that the yeild is about 200 to 250 nuts in a year  and each nut has  been sold at  Rs.  3.30 to Rs.  4/-.  PW3 the  owner of the lands adjacent to the acquired land in his evidence  would state that the coconut trees were planted in the lands 17  years back, that it has red soil and each tree would yeild about  200 to 250 coconut in a year. PW4 the Vedasandur Agricultural  Development Officer who has been in Government service for  the past 19 years would state in his evidence that these coconut  trees are of the tall variety, it has good growth, that there would  be  12  to  13  flowerings  in  a  year  in  these  trees  and  each  flowering would have 10 to 15 nuts and there would be an yeild  of 100 to 150 coconuts in a single tree and the trees would be  17 years old and each tree would yeild 120 coconuts. He in his  report  Exhibit  C3  given  to  the  Commissioner  has  stated  all  about the income, age, and type of the coconut trees present in  the land belonging to the claimant. Sarangapani which is near  the acquired lands. PW7 Rathina Nadar of Chozhavandan has  stated  that  he  used  to  purchase  coconuts  for  a  price  from  Sarangapani and Exhibit C8 is the bill given to Sarangapani on  04.03.1983. He has purchased 15190 nuts for Rs. 37,644/-. He  has stated that the rate of the nuts would be arounds Rs. 2.50 to  Rs. 3.00. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of  the said evidence that the annual income from a tree is Rs. 375/-  and excluding the expenses  the  income is  Rs.  334/-  and the  same  is  of  minimum scale  and it  is  insisted  that  the  annual  income of a single coconut tree must be calculated on the above  said basis.  The evidences let in would show that the coconut  

6

trees in the acquired lands belong to a good variety. There was  proper  irrigation  facility.  It  is  also  shown  that  it  has  been  properly  cultivated.  But  it  is  definite  that  the  annual  income  from a single tree has been shown to be very high on behalf of  the claimant.  Because  the cost  to  maintain  the coconut  trees  cannot be stated in a planned way. Further the annual income of  the coconut tree under Section 4(1) of the act as per notification  on 30.05.1984 amended as per order in I.A. No. 289, 290/93 of  30.04.1993, must be calculated as on that date. If the period for  calculating the income,  the expenses involved in maintaining  the coconut tree and the evidence are taken into calculation then  I consider, it correct and justifiable to fix the annual income of  a coconut tree at Rs. 200/- Therefore I find the annual income  of a coconut tree to be Rs. 200/-.”

8. The next question considered by the Reference Court was as to what  

would be the value of the remaining land, i.e. the land not covered by the  

trees.  After examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by the  

parties, the Reference Court observed:

“Exhibit R4 is the sale deed taken by RW1 for calculating the  market value. It is given in No. 9 in Exhibit R3. RW1 says that  on that basis the value of one acre is Rs. 6,500/- when it was  suggested to RW1 that it was a dry land and the well in it had  no water, he denied the same. But he has also said that he has  not seen the said land. The statement of RW1 that the said land  was equivalent  land for  calculating the market  value without  seeing  it  cannot  be  accepted.  He  has  only  functioned  in  a  manner so as to show the value of the land as very low. The  land should be taken for comparison to be an irrigated garden  lands. The argument placed on behalf of the claimant that they  were not given an opportunity to cross examine the purchaser  or the seller of lands taken for comparison, regarding its nature  as they have not been examined on behalf of the government  and the seller and buyer have not been examined only because  of the lands are not eligible for comparison, has to be accepted.  PW5 states that she sold 21 cents of land for Rs. 41,500/- vide  Exhibit C4. PW6 would state that she purchased the land near  the acquired lands for Rs. 44,280/- vide Exhibit C5. The lands  

7

sold vide Exhibit C4 have again been sold vide Exhibit C5. 21  cents of land has been sold for Rs. 31,500/- as per Exhibit C4.  The value of the well is shown to be Rs. 5,000/-. The value of  the motor is shown as Rs. 5,000/-. The land sold is marked as  No. 25 in Exhibit  R3. The land acquisition officer  has taken  these lands for comparison. It is shown as No. 25 in the sale  deed taken up. But he has rejected it on the ground that it was  not similar. This is a dry land cultivated with irrigation facility.  Further  Exhibit  B3 would only show that  these  lands situate  near to the lands acquired. It is clear that only this land has to  be taken for comparison for a calculating the market value of  the land. Therefore the lands sold vide Exhibits C4 and 5 are  taken for comparison. This sale would show the market value.  21 cents has been sold for a sum of Rs. 31,500/- Therefore the  value of one cent is Rs. 1,500/-. The market value of one acre is  Rs.1,50,000/-. ……….”

9. The respondent challenged the award of the Reference Court by filing  

appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which came to be registered as Appeal  

Suit Nos.976 and 977 of 1993.  On being noticed by the High Court, the  

landowners filed Cross Objection Nos. 23/1995 and 111/2001 and claimed  

that they were entitled to additional compensation.

10. During the pendency of the appeals and the cross objections, the land  

owners filed CMP Nos.  15193 and 16047 of 1997 for placing on record  

letter dated 17.2.1995 sent by Deputy Chief Engineer (Southern Railway),  

Gauge  Conversion  Arasaradi,  Madurai  to  the  Special  Tahsildar  (Land  

Acquisition) in which it was mentioned that the Railway Department entered  

upon the acquired land comprised  in survey Nos.  658/2,  663/3B, 664/2,  

8

665/1, 667/1 and 668 of village Vembur, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul, Anna  

District on 11.3.1985.

11. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  re-evaluated  the  evidence  

produced by the parties and held that the trees existing on the acquired land  

must have been 2 – 4 years old only.  The reasons assigned by the High  

Court for recording this conclusion are extracted below:

“It is pertinent to note that at the time of inspection, there were  only  354  numbers  of  trees  (6  yielding  trees  and  325  young  trees) and as matter of fact, R-l in his statement given by the  claimant  before  the  Award  Officer  dated  22.4.1987,  he  has  admitted  the  particulars  of  the  land  and  the  nature  of  his  cultivation. He had stated that he knew the extent of the land  that is sought to be acquired and he had also stated the extent of  the  land that  he  was been in  enjoyment  and that  he  had no  objection for the land being taken over and agreed to receive  the  compensation  determined.  All  the  tender  or  young  trees  were  planted  after  coming  to  know  of  the  acquisition.  The  claimant admits to have purchase 1500 tender/young trees, but  he  had not  obtained receipts  for  them.  Though in his  cross- examination as P.W.l he has stated that the said statement was  signed because he was asked to sign, it cannot be accepted. In  the light of the fact that the existing yielding trees in the extent  of the land, i.e. six will not constitute a thope, since minimum  80  trees  per  acre  are  required  to  claim  it  as  thope  and  for  valuing it by capitalising the income of the trees by 20 years of  purchase. The Award Officer taking into account that the tender  or young trees were planted on or about the date of proposal  and considering its  age,  determined the value of the trees as  timber. We do not find any illegality in the same. Ex. A.7, the  report  of  the  Agricultural  Officer  is  based  on the  inspection  dated 7.11.1992 at the instance of the Advocate Commissioner  appointed before the sub court. The Reference Court failed to  take  note  of  the  fact  of  lapse  of  8  years  from  the  date  of  notification and nearly 12 years from the date of proposals for  the Railways. The court did not go into the question of planting  

9

the coconuts during 1980's and in any event, at the time of 4 (1)  notification in the year 1984, these trees must  have been 2-4  years old only. Hence there is no scope of valuing them on the  basis  of  capitalisation  method.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court in K.A.A. Raja's case referred to above squarely applies  to this case.”

12. The High Court did not agree with the method of valuation adopted by  

the Reference Court for determining market value of the acquired land and  

held  that  the  landowners  are  entitled  to  compensation  at  the  rate  of  

Rs.1,00,000/-  per  acre.   The  reasons  assigned  by  the  High  Court  for  

recording this conclusion are as under:

“The Reference Court has taken Exs A.4 and A.5 as data sale  deeds. By Ex. A.4 21 cents of land was sold on 8.9.1982 for a  sum of Rs. 41.500/-. The same land was sold by Ex. A.5 on  6.7.1983 for a sum of Rs. 41,500/-. The Court below has taken  this  sale  deed  as  representing  the  correct  market  value  and  found that  the value per  cent  will  be Rs.31,500/--  '21=> Rs.  1,500/-. Based on that, he fixed the market value of the land per  acre at Rs. 1,50,000/-. In our view, the said method of valuation  is not correct as the said value cannot be taken for comparison.  Besides, the parties to the sale deed were not examined to find  out under what circumstances these 21 cents of land were sold.  From the  Award  and  the  judgment  it  is  seen  that  the  Land  Acquisition Officer  has taken the valuation at  the rate of Rs  6,500/- per acre.   In his evidence as D.W.1, he has stated that  the  document  referred  to  in  the Award dated 20.5.1982 was  taken as a data sale deed and the rate was fixed at Rs. 6,500/-  per acre.  The Officer has not given full particulars as to how he  considered this as comparable to the acquired land. Hence the  said document cannot be relief on for fixing the market value.  Therefore, we are left with only Ex A.4. However, considering  the small extent of land, the value as determined on the basis of  this  data  sale  land  can  be  taken  into  account  provided  development charges of 33.33% are deducted from this value. If  so  deducted,  the  value  will  be  Rs.1,00,000/-  per  acre.  The  

10

claimant is entitled to get compensation at this rate for the 1.52  acres  of  land  acquired  from him,  plus  the  value  of  trees  as  assessed as timber by the Award Officer, i.e. Rs.24,375/-. The  claimant  shall  be  entitled  to  interest  and  solatium  on  this  amount as per law on the value of the land plus trees.”

13. Shri  L.  Nageswara  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants  

argued that  the impugned  judgment  is  liable  to  be set  aside  because  the  

determination of market value made by the High Court suffers from multiple  

errors and fallacies.  Learned senior counsel submitted that the  Reference  

Court had rightly  relied  upon the  report  of  the  Advocate  Commissioner,  

which  was  founded  on  the  report  of  Shri  P.  Nagarajan,  Agricultural  

Development Officer for the purpose of determining the number, age and  

yielding potential of the coconut trees existing on the acquired land and the  

High  Court  committed  serious  error  by  upsetting  the  said  finding  by  

assuming  that  the  trees  were  planted  by  the  landowners  after  coming  to  

know about the proposed acquisition of their land.  Learned senior counsel  

submitted  that  this  observation  of  the  High  Court  is  based  on  pure  

conjectures because no evidence was produced by the respondent to show  

that the landowners had prior knowledge of the requisition received from  

Executive Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway for the acquisition of  

their land.  Shri Nageswara Rao further argued that the High Court was not  

at all justified in treating the flowering trees as timber for the purpose of  

fixing their value.  He then submitted that the Reference Court had rightly  

11

relied upon the sale deeds Exts. A4 and A5 vide which land measuring 21  

cents  was  sold  in  1982  and  1983  for  Rs.41,500/-  and  the  High  Court  

committed an error by discarding the two sale deeds only on the ground that  

the same related to small piece of land.  Learned senior counsel emphasized  

that  the  respondent  had  not  produced  any  evidence  regarding  the  cost  

required to be incurred for making the land fit  for construction of Broad  

Gauge  Line  and  argued  that  the  High  Court  was  not  at  all  justified  in  

applying 1/3rd cut towards development charges.  Shri Nageswara Rao then  

argued that  both,  the  Reference  Court and the  High Court committed  an  

error by awarding interest w.e.f. 20.5.1987 despite the fact that possession of  

the acquired land had been taken by the Railway Department on 11.3.1985.  

In  the  end,  the  learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  in  terms  of  the  

judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211, the  

appellants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount.

14. Shri  R.  Sundaravaradan,  learned senior  counsel  for  the respondent,  

supported  the  impugned  judgment  and  argued  that  the  determination  of  

market value by the High Court is based on correct application of the settled  

principles of law and does not merit reconsideration by this Court.  Learned  

senior counsel submitted that the Reference Court had erroneously fixed the  

age  of  coconut  trees,  which  were  newly  planted  and  were  only  at  the  

flowering stage.  Shri Sundaravaradan submitted that the new trees could not  

12

have been taken into consideration for fixing the value of yield of the total  

number of trees.  He then argued that the determination of market value of  

the remaining land by the Reference Court was per se erroneous inasmuch  

as the sale instances relied upon by the land owners related to small parcel of  

land measuring 21 cents and the High Court rightly applied the rule of 1/3rd  

cut towards the development charges.

15. We  have  given  serious  thought  to  the  respective  arguments  and  

scrutinized the record.  At the outset, we consider it proper to observe that  

the High Court committed serious error in deciding the appeals without even  

adverting to CMP Nos. 15193/1997 and 16047/1997 along with which the  

appellants had placed on record letter dated 17.2.1995 written by Deputy  

Chief Engineer (Southern Railway), Gauge Conversion Arasaradi, Madurai  

to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) clearly indicating therein that  

possession  of  the  acquired  land  had  been  taken  on  11.3.1985.   In  our  

opinion, the letter of the Deputy Chief Engineer is conclusive of the date on  

which possession was taken, i.e. 11.3.1985 and both, the Reference Court  

and the High Court committed an error by awarding interest with effect from  

20.5.1987.

16. Adverting to the arguments of the learned senior counsel on the issue  

of fixing market value of the trees, we find that while the Reference Court  

13

had  relied  upon  reports  dated  7.11.1992  and  20.11.1992  of  Shri  P.  

Nagarajan, Agricultural Development Officer and the Court Commissioner  

for  the purpose of recording a finding that as  on the date of notification  

under Section 4(1) of the Act, the age of the trees could be 8 to 9 years and  

in due course even the flowering trees would become fruit bearing trees and  

yield income for next 60 to 70 years.  The High Court totally ignored the  

two reports and fixed market value of young trees by treating the same as  

timber.  Learned senior counsel for the respondent could not put forward any  

tangible argument as to why the report of an expert should not be relied  

upon for  the  purpose  of  fixing value of  the trees  with reference  to  their  

expected yield. Therefore,  we  are  convinced  that  the  High  Court  

committed an error by upsetting the view taken by the Reference Court on  

the issue of market value of the trees.

17. Equally erroneous is the approach adopted by the High Court in fixing  

market value of the remaining land.  Although, the appellants’ argument that  

the Reference Court should not have segregated land covered by the trees for  

the  purpose  of  fixing  market  value  of  the  remaining  land  may  not  be  

acceptable because once market value of the trees was separately fixed, there  

could be no justification for clubbing the two types of land for the purpose  

of fixing market value, the High Court committed serious error by ignoring  

the two sale instances – Ext. A4 and A5 and, at the same time, applying 1/3 rd  

14

cut.  It is true that the two sale instances related to a small parcel of land but,  

in the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance could be relied upon  

for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, on which trees  

had not been planted, after applying an appropriate cut.  By Ext.A4 dated  

8.9.1982, 21 cents land was sold for a sum of Rs.41,500/-.  The same piece  

of  land  was  sold  vide  Ext.  A5  dated  6.7.1983  at  the  same  price,  i.e.  

Rs.41,500/-.   The  notification  under  Section  4(1)  was  published  on  

30.5.1984.  If the rule of escalation in the land price evolved by this Court is  

applied,  then  a  minimum  increase  of  10%  is  to  be  added  to  the  price  

specified in Ext. A5.  Thus, as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the  

approximate value of 21 cents land would be Rs.45,550/-.  This would be  

equivalent to approximately Rs.2,169/- per cent and Rs.2,27,750/- per acre.  

Though, the respondent did not produce any evidence to show the amount,  

which was likely to be spent on making the land useful for the purpose of  

laying  Broad  Gauge  Line,  if  1/3rd cut  applied  by  the  High  Court  is  

considered reasonable in view of the principles laid down by this Court in  

Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, which were reiterated in  

Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha  

Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12  

SCC 642,  H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi  (2004) 2 SCC 184 and  

Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745,  

market value of the acquired land will be about Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.

15

18. We also agree with Shri Nageswara Rao that the appellants should be  

given the benefit of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in  

Sunder v. Union of India (supra).  It  appears that attention of the High  

Court was not drawn to that judgment else it would have, in all probability,  

extended the benefit of that judgment to the appellants.

19. In the result, the appeals are allowed.  The impugned judgments are  

set  aside  and the  award passed  by  the  Reference  Court is  restored  with  

modification that the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced  

amount with effect from 11.3.1985, i.e. the date on which possession of land  

was taken by the Railway Department.  They shall also be entitled to interest  

on solatium and additional amount in terms of the judgment in  Sunder v.  

Union of  India (supra).   The  respondent  is  directed  to  pay  the  balance  

amount  of  compensation  and  interest  to  the  legal  representatives  of  the  

landowners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production  

of copy of this judgment.

………………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

……………………………..J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi

16

September 23, 2011.

17