CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal by the Land Acquisition officer we are constrained to say that there is no merit. ( 2 ) FOR land acquired for a public purpose, compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,800/- per acres is granted. The land comes under the command area of the Bhadra Reservoir in Channagiri taluk, Shimoga District. It is therefore valuable land cannot be disputed. There is evidence on record that the claimant was growing sugarcane. That in itself shows that the land had irrigated facility throughout the year, as sugarcane crop requires watering in all the 12 months. ( 3 ) THE only ground urged by the learned Government Advocate before us is that the possession of the land was taken on 18-4-1978 though the preliminary notification was issued subsequently on 22-12-1983 and as such the market value should be fixed as on the date of taking the land into possession by the Land Acquisition officer. That contention runs contrary to item-1 of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act ). If the legislative mandate is that the market value should be fixed with reference to the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the act, then the same has to be fixed only with reference to item-1 of sub-section (l) of Section 23 of the Act. ( 4 ) IN any event, on evidence the Court of the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, has taken the view that the claimant continued to be in possession of the land even in the years subsequent to 1978. Therefore, even on that ground also the contention should fail. ( 5 ) IN so far as valuation of the land is concerned, he has capitalized the income from the agricultural produce. We find no error in the method adopted by him. He has chosen the maximum multiplier at 9 and has multiplied it by the annual income per acre from the land, awarding rs. 37,800/ -. It is very much in order and in consonance with the rulings of this Court. We find no error in the method adopted by him. He has chosen the maximum multiplier at 9 and has multiplied it by the annual income per acre from the land, awarding rs. 37,800/ -. It is very much in order and in consonance with the rulings of this Court. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that in awarding additional market value under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act the learned Civil Judge has taken for purpose of calculation,18-4-1978, the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer claimed to have taken possession of the land contrary to his own finding that claimant had continued in possession till the date of preliminary notification. Therefore, we must interfere with that finding and amend that part of the decree under appeal so as to read that he shall be entitled to market value enhancement only from the date of preliminary notification as no evidence has been placed before the Court as to on what subsequent date after preliminary notification possession was handed over to the Land Acquisition officer. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY awarding 9% interest p. a. with effect from 18-4-1978 on the sum of Rs. 90,500/- is also incorrect. It should be only from the date of preliminary notification. The interest should be calculated at 9% p. a. for the same reason we have given in respect of the additional market value under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In other respects it is dismissed. ( 9 ) THE decree shall be drawn in accordance with the judgment delivered by us as above. There will be no orders as to costs. Appeal Allowed. --- *** --- .