JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This revision is filed by the claimants questioning the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad refusing to grant additional benefits with regard to solatium, interest and also the benefits Under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as amended by [ACT]. The learned Judge referred to the fact that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was dt. 9-3-64, and the award of the Civil Court on reference Under [SECTION] of the Act was dt. 11-9-67 and held that in view of the fact that the awards of both the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Civil Court are prior to 30-4-82, the claimants are not entitled to the benefits under the [ACT] as amended by [ACT]. Questioning the said order, this revision is filed by the claimants.
2. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that in view of the Judgment in [PRECEDENT], he is entitled to the additional benefits. The learned counsel relied upon the observations in para 14 of the said judgment. 1 am unable to find anything in para 14 of the above mentioned judgment to support the contention that the claimants are entitled to the enhanced benefits of the [ACT] as amended by [ACT]. In the said decision, the learned Judges, after an exhaustive consideration of the matter, held that the compensation payable to the company should be worked out at Rs. 9/- per square yard and the rate payable to [ENTITY] is at Rs. 8/- per square yard and that the market vatue of the land should be determined as per the notification dt. 28-2-63. In the said judgment there is no decision with regard to the fact whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation as per the [ACT] as amended by [ACT]. On the other hand, this question has been set at rest by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] which was followed by this Court also. As per the said judgment, the benefits of the [ACT] as amended by [ACT] will be available to the claimants in case either the award of the Land Acquisition Officer or the award of the Civil Court is rendered be(sic)een 30-4-82 to 24-9-84. In view of the above authoritative decision of the Supreme Court which was followed by this Court and which is binding, I hold that the claimants in this case are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest as per the [ACT] as amended by [ACT] in view of the fact that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was dt. 9-3-64 and the award of the Civil Court on reference Under [SECTION] was dt. 11-9-67.
3. The benefits conferred by [SECTION] of the [ACT] are also not available to the claimants in the present case for the reason that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was passed prior to 30-4-82, viz., it was passed on 9-3-64. These propositions are also authoritatively laid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in a decision [PRECEDENT] The learned Judges of the Supreme Court clearly held that the benefits areavailable Under [SECTION] of the Act only if the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was passed between 30-4-82 to 24-9-84. This has nothing to do with the award of the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to hold that the benefits of the [ACT] as amended by [ACT] are applicable to the present case. The claimants in the present case are not entitled to the benefits of the [ACT].
4. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the claimants contended, relying upon para 18 of the judgment cited supra (3) that if the award of the Collector was passed on 23-9-84, the benefits Under [SECTION] of the Act are available, but if it is passed on 25-9-84 by the Collector, the same are not available. Similar is the position with reference to the date of 30-4-82 and 29-4-82 and contends that it is discriminatory and violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Whatever may be the contention advanced before me in this regard, I am bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to supra.
5. In that view of the matter, this revision is dismissed. No costs.