JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - Vide notification dated November 5, 1976 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land in question belonging to the claimant was acquired by the respondent for a water supply scheme. The learned Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land but the claimant was not satisfied and claimed a reference. The matter was duly referred to the learned District Judge, Gurgaon under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It may be noticed that along with the land, the super-structure standing thereupon along with a well and a pipal tree was also claimed to have been acquired. 2. During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. The learned District Judge found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate in any manner. No evidence was led by the landlord to show that the land was liable to be assessed at a higher rate. With regard to the super-structure etc., the learned District Judge took into consideration the valuation report Ex.P3 prepared by Satya Narain PW2. As per the aforesaid report, the market value of the super-structure was assessed at Rs. 24109.45. The learned District Judge held that the valuation report was prepared on the basis of the prevalent price in the year 1987. The acquisition was made in the year 1976 and as such the learned District Judge imposed 1/3rd cut on the said assessment of the market value and held the market value of the super-structure, well etc. at Rs. 16000/-. Accordingly, the reference was answered. The claimant-landlord was also held entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. 3. The claimant-landlord has still felt dissatisfied and has approached this court through the present appeal. 4. I have heard Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Vijay Dahiya, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 5. Shri A.P. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in fact the possession of the land in question belonging to the appellant was taken on October 2, 1975 whereas the notification had been issued on November 5, 1976. 5. Shri A.P. Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in fact the possession of the land in question belonging to the appellant was taken on October 2, 1975 whereas the notification had been issued on November 5, 1976. According to Shri Bhandari, the learned District Judge has not taken into consideration the period from October, 1975 to November, 1976 and as such the claimant was also entitled to compensation for the aforesaid period as well. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the appellant and in my considered view the said plea overlooks the fact that beside granting enhanced compensation for the well and super-structure etc., the learned District Judge has also ordered that the claimant was held entitled to solatium, interest and other charges in accordance with the amended provision of the Act. As per section 34 of the amended Act, the claimant beside the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector or the reference Court shall also be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of taking possession until the payment has been so paid or deposited. In the proviso of section 34 of the Act, it has further been laid down that if the compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date of such possession is taken, then the claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation till the same is paid. From the perusal of provision of section 34 of the Act, it is clear that the period from the year 1975 when the possession of the and from the claimant-landlord was taken till the date of the award would be duly taken care of by the payment of interest under section 34 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is again made clear that beside enhanced amount of compensation with regard to the well and other super-structure etc., the claimant-landlord would also be entitled to solatium, interest and other statutory benefits in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act with regard to the land and super-structure etc. No costs. Appeal dismissed.