ORDER M.M. Kumar, J. - This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 476 of 1989 and 477 of 1989 as the common questions of law and facts have been raised. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act) challenging the order dated 21.11.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad holding that the claimant-respondents were entitled to compensation of the land in dispute @ Rs. 18/- per sq.yd. at the time of issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act. Alongwith the entitlement to the market value @ Rs. 18/-, they were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% p.a. for the subsequent years till the date of payment in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act. The respondents were also held entitled to the amount calculated @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid market value as envisaged under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The only ground taken in the memorandum of appeal is that the benefit of amended provision of the Act cannot be extended to the claimant-respondents. Mr. Vijay Dahiya, learned State counsel has fairly pointed out that the afore-mentioned grounds would no longer be available to the appellant-State because according to the law prevailing now the claimant-respondents would be entitled to the benefits of amended provisions with regard to solatium, interest and other interest. 2. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I find that a Constitution Bench in the case of Union of India v. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933 has held that the judgment delivered by the District Judge while deciding reference under Section 18 after 30.4.1982 would not earn the benefit of amended provisions of the Act and the order passed earlier to that date would earn the statutory benefits in accordance with the amendments. Reference may also be made to other owe judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Fazeelath v. Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, AIR 1995 SC 1425 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal & others, JT 2001 (Suppl.1) SC 251. 3. In view of the afore-mentioned legal position prevailing today, I do not find any ground to interests in the judgment dated 22.11.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Fazeelath v. Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, AIR 1995 SC 1425 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal & others, JT 2001 (Suppl.1) SC 251. 3. In view of the afore-mentioned legal position prevailing today, I do not find any ground to interests in the judgment dated 22.11.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The benefit of amended provisions of the Act have been rightly awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere. The appeal is without any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.