Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant is an Urban Development Authority for Visakhapatnam constituted under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975. As part of its activities, it has acquired land in and around Visakhapatnam City for different purposes. One such acquisition was of an extent of Ac.6.75 cents in Survey No.49 of Maddilapalem, owned by the respondents. The acquisition was for the purpose of a housing scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 24.12.1970. May be on account of the pendency of the proceedings assailing acquisition, there was delay in passing the award. It was only on 26.12.1979, that the Land Acquisition Officer passed award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6.35 paise, per square yard. Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, seeking reference. Their request was acceded to and the matter was referred to the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and it was taken up as O.P.No.263 of 1980. Through its order, dated 07.07.1987, the trial Court enhanced the market value to Rs.10.45 paise, per square yard. The benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and other relevant provisions introduced to the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 (for short ‘Act 68 of 1984’), were also extended. In its capacity as beneficiary of the acquired land, the appellant filed A.S.No.2843 of 1989 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowed the appeal setting aside that portion of the order passed by the trial Court, through which, some of the benefits under the amended Act were extended to the respondents. However, the market value fixed by the trial Court was confirmed. Not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, subm2its that there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in enhancing the market value from Rs.6.35 paise to Rs.10.45 paise. He contends that Exs.A.1 to A.3, relied upon by the respondents, were just the Photostat copies and still, were received in evidence. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, subm2its that there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in enhancing the market value from Rs.6.35 paise to Rs.10.45 paise. He contends that Exs.A.1 to A.3, relied upon by the respondents, were just the Photostat copies and still, were received in evidence. He submits that the acquisition was much prior to the amendment and there was no basis for extending the benefits under the amended Act, in particular, Section 23(1-A) of the Act, to the respondents. Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that no objection was raised when Exs.A.1 to A.3 were filed and it is not open to the appellant to raise objection at this stage. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has set aside the portion of the decree, taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited (1995) Supp. 5 SCR 790)and since the said judgment was found to be not a good law in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 ), his clients are entitled to all the benefits under the amended Act. It was way back in the year 1970, that the land of the contesting respondents was acquired. The award was passed nine years thereafter. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.6.35 paise per square yard. On reference made at the instance of the respondents, the trial Court enhanced the market value to Rs.10.45 paise per square yard. The basis therefor was the oral evidence comprising depositions of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 of the years 1980, 1976 and 1975, respectively. On behalf of the appellant, or the Land Acquisition Officer no oral evidence was adduced. The award and two certified copies of the sale deeds of the years 1970 were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.3. Though it may appear that the basis for the trial Court to enhance the market value is Exs.A.1 to A.3, a perusal of the order passed in the O.P., makes it clear that it is not so. The record of the award was very much available before the trial Court. The sale statistics pertaining to the land in and around survey No.50, at the relevant point of time were considered. The record of the award was very much available before the trial Court. The sale statistics pertaining to the land in and around survey No.50, at the relevant point of time were considered. The Land Acquisition Officer took into account, only two sale deeds i.e., Exs.B.2 and B.3. On verification of the record, the trial Court found that there were two transactions, which took place on 31.10.1969 and 29.06.1970 that reflected the market value of more than Rs.10/- per square yard. transactions, which took place on 31.10.1969 and 29.06.1970 that reflected the market value of more than Rs.10/- per square yard. Suitable appreciation in the market value based on the trends at the relevant point of time, was allowed. The trial Court has also assigned cogent reasons in support of its conclusion for fixing the market value at Rs.10.45 paise per square yard. The probable appreciation has virtually been set off against the deductions that are required to be made. We do not find any basis to interfere with the market value adopted by the trial Court. The other aspect is about the extension of the benefits under Act 68 of 1984. Learned Single Judge held that the respondents are not entitled for those benefits, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur’s case (1 supra). Obviously, on realizing that the law is against them, the respondents also did not file an appeal against that finding. However, during the pendency of the present L.P.A., the Supreme Court reversed its view in Prem Nath Kapur’s case (1 supra), through its judgment in Sunder’s case (2 supra). Though the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the year 1970, the fact remains that the award by the trial Court in the reference under Section 18 of the Act was passed, after the amendment came into force. In K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593 ), the Supreme Court held that once the award either by the Land Acquisition Officer, or by the civil Court is passed subsequent to the amendment, the owners of the acquired land, are entitled for the benefits of amendment. The judgment in Sunder’s case (2 supra) is to the effect that the interest is payable on solatium as well as additional market value awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The judgment in Sunder’s case (2 supra) is to the effect that the interest is payable on solatium as well as additional market value awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Through the respondents did not file any appeal in this behalf, this Court can grant the relief in exercise of power under Rule 33 of Order XLI C.P.C. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of, upholding the market value determined by the trial Court, but setting aside the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.2843 of 1989 to the extent, the respondents were denied the benefits under the Act 68 of 1984. It is directed that the respondents shall be entitled to the benefits provided for under the said Act. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.