JUDGMENT : Per Ghulam Mohammed, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sircilla, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the judgment and decree dated 30-04-1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jagtial, in O.P. No. 18 of 1986 by which the O.P. was allowed enhancing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Sircilla. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac. 10.17 guntas situated in Thangallapalli and Sircilla villages was acquired by issuing draft notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act, which were published in the official Gazettes on 13-07-1978 and 21-06-1982 respectively for the purpose of construction of High level Manair Bridge across the road. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 31-01-1986 determining the market value of the acquired lands situated at Thangalapalli village at Rs.5,000/- per acre for Sy. Nos 39, 40, and 41/3 and at Rs.10,000/- per acre for Ac. 1.39 guntas in Sy. No. 38 and Ac. 1.26 guntas and Ac. 0.13 guntas in Sy. No. 41/5 apart from other benefits. 3. So far as the lands at Sircilla village, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.20,500/- per acre in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 517, 518, 520, 522 and 524 including the value of the structures existing in the lands. The claimants received compensation under protest and on their request, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. 4. Before the reference Court, PWs. 1 to 17 and RW. 1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B.1 to B.5 were marked. Relying on Exs. A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 sale transactions, the reference Court held that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is somewhat low and hence, fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/-per acre for the dry lands situated in Sy. Nos 39, 40 and 41/3 of thangapalli village and Rs.25,000/- per acre in respect of the same village in Sy.Nos. 38 and 41-5. It held the claimants to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- for Sy.Nos. 517 and 518 and Rs.50,000/- for Sy.Nos. 522, 523 and 524 of Sircilla village and Rs.3,400/- for the well situated in Sy. No. 523 and Rs. 1,000/- each for Mango and tamarind tree. 38 and 41-5. It held the claimants to be entitled to Rs.40,000/- for Sy.Nos. 517 and 518 and Rs.50,000/- for Sy.Nos. 522, 523 and 524 of Sircilla village and Rs.3,400/- for the well situated in Sy. No. 523 and Rs. 1,000/- each for Mango and tamarind tree. The claimants were also held to be entitled to Rs.28,500/- Rs. 48,500/-, Rs.26,200/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.7000/-, Rs.10,400/- and Rs.29,000/- for various structures including 30% solatium, 12 % additional market value and 9% p.a. interest for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% till realization of the amount. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decree and judgment, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and the learned counsel for respondents. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals vehemently argued that the method of enhancement adopted by the reference Court is not only irrational but also in contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. He further argued that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable being based on the sale transactions in the surrounding areas and needs no enhancement. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the market value determined by the reference Court is just and reasonable? 9. We have perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. The acquisition of land by the Land Acquisition Officer is not in dispute as the same was in tune with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The only dispute left for determination herein is that the compensation enhanced by the reference Court is improper and unjust. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the reference Court, while enhancing the market value, took into consideration the sale statistics as shown in Exs. A2, A3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.8, which are certified copies of the registered sale deeds having been proved by PWs. 10, 11, 14, to 17 in the absence of rebuttal evidence on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer. It also appears that the reference Court took into account, while enhancing the market value, the fact that the acquired lands are surrounded by all Government Offices, police stations, Cinema theatre, Beedi factory, Schools, houses and the sheds and also the fact that the acquisition of land resulted in some of the land holders becoming shelterless. It also appears that the reference Court took into account, while enhancing the market value, the fact that the acquired lands are surrounded by all Government Offices, police stations, Cinema theatre, Beedi factory, Schools, houses and the sheds and also the fact that the acquisition of land resulted in some of the land holders becoming shelterless. It is also to be noted that the Land Acquisition Officer did not even make any attempt to rebut the evidence produced by the claimants, and hence, in the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the evidence produced by the claimants cannot be said to be unacceptable. 10. Under those circumstances, enhancement of the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by the reference Court cannot be said to be improper and unreasonable as the reference Court properly considered various circumstances while enhancing the market value. 11. Insofar as awarding interest at 9% from the date of taking possession for one year and at 15% for the subsequent years till realization is concerned, on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the reference Court went wrong in awarding such interest from the date of taking possession, as the lands were acquired prior to the date of 4(1) notification, instead of awarding the same only from the date 4(1) notification, in the light of settles principle laid down by the Apex Court by its judgment in R.L. Jain v. DDA and others (1) AIR 2004 SC 1904 . In that case, the Apex Court (Larger Bench) had an occasion to consider the correctness or otherwise of the two conflicting decisions of the Apex Court in Shri Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills v. State of Gujarat (2) (1991) SCC 262 and Union of India v. Budh Singh (3) (1995) 9 SCC 233. The issue before the Larger Bench was whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant (owner of land) is entitled to interest for such 34 of the said Act. The relevant paras read thus: “17. The issue before the Larger Bench was whether in a case where possession is taken before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant (owner of land) is entitled to interest for such 34 of the said Act. The relevant paras read thus: “17. The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9-9-1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the land owner himself and consequently he was not entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period. 18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continuous to vest with the land owner. It is fully open for the land owner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property…” 12. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain’s case (1 supra), the claimants are entitled to claim damages/rents from the date of taking possession of the lands in question till the date of 4(1) notification. However, since damages/rents have to be ascertained, we deem it appropriate to permit the claimants to move an application before the concerned appropriate forum and on such an application being filed by the claimants, the same shall be adjudicated and disposed of within a period of six months in accordance with law. However, since damages/rents have to be ascertained, we deem it appropriate to permit the claimants to move an application before the concerned appropriate forum and on such an application being filed by the claimants, the same shall be adjudicated and disposed of within a period of six months in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act only from the date of 4(1) notification till realization at 9% for the first year and at 15% for the subsequent years till realization, apart from all statutory benefits under the Act. Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above unaltering the same in respect of other aspects. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered without costs.