JUDGMENT Both the appeal suits are directed against the Order dated 19.2.1987 made in L.A.O.P. No.21 of 1982 by the Court of Reference and Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. 2. A.S.No.245 of 1988 has been preferred by the claimant as against a portion of the award passed by the Court of Reference thereby enhancing the compensation amount, to be paid in favour of the claimant, to 200 per cent from Rs.30 per cent as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and refusing to grant any additional amount as compensation under Sec.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is only the second part of the award, wherein the Court of Reference has declined to grant the additional amount, which shall in every case be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in respect of the land acquired, to the date of award or date of taking possession of the land by the Collector, whichever is earlier. Hence, the claimant calculating the said amount in the case in hand at Rs.18,956.75 has come forward to prefer the above appeal claiming the said additional amount. 3. A.S.No.33 of 1988 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, representing the Government as against the enhancement of the land valued to 200 per cent from Rs.30 per cent as fixed by the L.A.O. praying thereby to set aside the said award passed by the Court of Reference. 4. Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that an extent of 3.97 acres of land falling under S.No.92/1 of Pudupatti village, Ambasamudram Taluk has been acquired for providing houses sites to landless Adi Dravidars. The publication of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been effected on 25.12.1974. The L.A.O., having considered the value of the land and also having a comparative study of the lands in question with the date lands which were sold out recently in and around the same area, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.30 per cent. 5. The L.A.O., having considered the value of the land and also having a comparative study of the lands in question with the date lands which were sold out recently in and around the same area, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.30 per cent. 5. On a reference made under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court of Reference held a full enquiry, in which, two witnesses have been examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 on the part of the claimant and nor has been examined on the part of the L.A.O., for oral evidence. For documentary evidence, eight documents have been marked on the part of the claimant as Exs.A-1 to A-8 and two documents have been marked on the part of the Government as Exs.B-1 and B-2. 6. In consideration of these evidence placed on record, the Court of Reference having framed proper points for determination on the facts and circumstances of the case as pleading by parties, in the context of the evidence made available, would ultimately, fix the value of the land acquired at Rs.200 per cent. 7. Aggrieved, both the claimant and the Land Acquisition Officer representing the Government have preferred the above appeals on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of memorandum of appeals. 8. In the above circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the Court of Reference has erred in enhancing the compensation amount of the land from Rs.30 per cent to Rs.200 per cent and whether the claimant is entitled to get the additional amount at the rate of 12% as claimed by her in the appeal, and if so, whether the award passed by the Court of Reference is liable to be set aside? 9. In consideration of the facts pleaded by parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that an extent of 3.97 acres of land belonging to Saroja, the claimant, has been acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to landless Adi Dravidars, in connection with which, 4(1) notification has been published in the Government Gazette on 25.12.1974 and the award of the LAO has been made on 22.12.1976. The L.A.O., has valued the lands acquired at Rs.30 per cent and the same has been valued at Rs.200 per cent by the Court of Reference. The L.A.O., has valued the lands acquired at Rs.30 per cent and the same has been valued at Rs.200 per cent by the Court of Reference. 10. Answering the first part of the point framed, viz., whether the Court of Reference has erred in enhancing the compensation amount of the land from Rs.30 per cent to Rs.200 per cent? a careful study made into the order passed by the Court of Reference would show that in appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the claimant, the lower Court is able to find that the land acquired from the claimant is adjacent to the Highways: that the petitioner had already made all arrangements for starting a rice mill in a portion of the said land, having obtained necessary permission even prior to the date of publication of the 4(1) notification and that she had also acquired the building materials; that on the west of the land, there is a Panchayat room and on the east, the highways and the lands has all facilities, such as bus stop, over tank, electric transmission line, etc. being located very close to the same and the potential value of the land is very high, which could very well be used for the construction of the building. Hence, the value of the building is higher than the value fixed by the L.A.O. manifold, which have been established in the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Exs.A-1 to A-3 showing the preparation made on the part of the claimant for staring a rice mill in portion of the acquired property. Exs.A-4 to A-6 respectively dated 11.3.1974, 21.8.1974, and 3.10.1974 are all safe deeds of the same year of the date of publication of notification under Sec.4(1) made in this case. However, the Court of Reference having considered Ex.A-5 which is nearer to th place of acquisition, wherein one cent of land has been sold at Rs.200 per cent, has ultimately arrived at the conclusion to fix the same as the compensation amount for the lands acquired in this case, which is quite convincing and acceptable, and therefore, no interference of this Court is required to be made into the well considered and well merited order passed by the Court of Reference. 11. 11. Coming to the second part of the point framed viz., whether the appellant/ claimant in A.S.No.245 of 1988 is entitled to the award of additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of passing of the award or taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier? it should be pointed out as follows: “Sub-sec.(1-A) inserted to Sec.23 by Amendment Act LXVIII of 1984 states that in addition to the market value of the land, as provided in Sec.23(1), the Court shall award an amount at the rate of twelve per sent per annum on the market value from the date of the 4(1) notification to the date of award or taking possession, whichever is earlier and it has also amended Sub-sec.(2) by increasing the amount of solatium from fifteen per cent to thirty per cent of the market value. The interpretation with regard to the retrospective effort to be given to Sub-sec.(1-A) of Sec.23 crated intense controversy in the Supreme Court. The controversy has been finally settled by a five Judges Bench in the case of K.S.Paripoornam v. State of Kerala K.S.Paripoornam v. State of Kerala K.S.Paripoornam v. State of Kerala (1994)5 S.C.C. 593 . The view in (1990)1 S.C.C. 277 is endorsed and the view expressed in (1992)1 S.C.C. 673 , found to be incorrect. Hence, if cases pending before the reference Court as on 24th September, 1984 (date of commencement of Amendment Act LXVIII of 1984 ) and award was made by the Collector prior to 30th April, 1982, in Lok Sabha are not covered by Sec.23(1-A)”. Since the case in hand is one in which the award had been passed by the L.A.O., on 22.12.1976, much earlier to the introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982, i.e., prior to 30.4.1982, the cutoff date, this case is not covered by Sec.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, it is hereby held that the appellant/ claimant is not entitled to claim an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of 4(1) notification of the Act, till the date of award or till the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector, whichever is earlier. Hence, the appellant/ claimant in A.S.No.245 of 1988 is not at all entitled to the additional amount in law and the appeal only becomes liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. 12. It is further seen that the Court of Reference has correctly awarded the statutory benefit, such as, solatium at 30% on the compensation amount. Moreover, the lower Court has granted interest on the market value at 9% from the date of taking possession till the date of realisation. Hence, it has become necessary to effect modification in the grant of interest at 9% for the first year from the date of award or taking possession of the land and 255 for every subsequent year on the amount calculated as the market value of the land, till the date of realisation. 13. However, following the decision of the Apex Court in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. S.P.Singh (1997)1 S.C.C. 249 it is hereby held that no interest shall be calculated on the statutory benefits, such as, the solatium or additional amount or the interest that accrue on the award amount. To clarify, only on the market value as fixed by this Court and the award made, the interest shall be calculated. 14. In result, subject to the modification regarding the grant of interest as indicated above, both the above appeal suits are dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.