( 1 ) THE Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer is in appeal before us, aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein the market value of the lands acquired was determined at the rate of rupees ninety per square metre as against the determination of the market value at the rate of rupees seventy per square metre by the Reference Court. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants urged two contentions before us; one, that the respondents were entitled to additional benefits from the date of issuing of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act" ). In this case, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 5-9-1991 and the possession of the acquired lands was taken in 1962-63. The High Court was not right in awarding additional compensation from the date of taking possession of the lands acquired; it should have been from the date on which the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. ( 3 ) WE may state here itself that this contention is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The second contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Reference Court having already taken into consideration the escalation in price and fixing the market value at the rate of rupees seventy per square metre, the High Court was not right and justified in further enhancing the amount of compensation from rupees seventy per square metre to rupees ninety per square metre. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the reference made in the impugned judgment to Exhibits 20, 21 and 22, on the basis of which the market value was rightly determined. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the reference made in the impugned judgment to Exhibits 20, 21 and 22, on the basis of which the market value was rightly determined. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the first contention, in view of the legal position stated by this Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and also taking note of the fact that the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this legal position, we hold that the respondents are entitled to additional benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from 5-9-1991 and not from the date on which possession of the lands acquired was taken. As regards the market value of the lands acquired, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has stated thus: ( 6 ) TO arrive at the fair market rate in respect of the land concerned in these appeals keeping in view the dates of the notification under Section 4 i. e. 5-9-1991 and in case of the lands concerned in Exts. 20, 21 and 22 the dates of notification under Section 4 being 13-6-1985, 20-12-1984 and 20-5-1981, respectively and keeping in view the lowest rate of Rs 45 per sq m in case of Ext. 22 in which the date of notification under Section 4 is 20-5-1981 even if 10% increase p. a. for ten years i. e. from 1981 to 1991 is granted while determining the rate of compensation, the award of compensation at the rate of Rs 90 per sq m (45 + 4. 5 x 10 = 90) will be just and proper and therefore we find that the claimants are entitled to be paid the compensation at the rate of Rs 90 per sq m. ( 7 ) IN view of what is stated above by the High Court and having regard to Exhibits 20, 21 and 22, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in determining the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of rupees ninety per square metre. We also take note of the fact that the possession of the lands acquired was taken almost thirty years earlier to the issuing of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. We also take note of the fact that the possession of the lands acquired was taken almost thirty years earlier to the issuing of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Thus, having regard to all aspects of the matter in these appeals, we are not inclined to disturb the finding recorded by the High Court, so far as it relates to the determination of the market value at the rate of rupees ninety per square metre but we modify the impugned judgment to the extent that the respondents are entitled to the additional benefits under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from 5-9-1991 and not from 1962-63, during which year the possession of the lands acquired was taken. ( 8 ) WE also make it clear that the respondents shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them as per Amendment Act 68 of 1984 under the Act and in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India on the amount of compensation, as determined above. ( 9 ) THE impugned judgment stands modified in the above terms. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. ( 10 ) NO costs.