JUDGMENT V. K Mehrotra, J.—The State of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated January 6, 1970, which was published in the H. P. Gazette dated January 17, 1970. Under this Notification it proposed to acquire 169.3 bighas of land for construction of residential colony for Government servants. The Notification was followed by a Notification under section 6 in respect of a little over 91 bighas of land. In this was comprised 34 bighas 5 biswas land of appellant Sher Singh. 2. In the present appeal we are concerned with the land belonging to the appellant alone which consisted of orchard land 6.15 bighas; Bakhal Abal 16 6 bigbas; Ghasni etc. 10.7 bighas ; Gair Mumkin Kothi and courtyard etc. 0.17 bighas. 3. An Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on November 11, 1971. The details thereof need not be mentioned at this stage. At the instance of the appellant a reference was made to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter, "the Act"). It was contested by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, by his judgment and order dated January 29, 1970 the District Judge, Shimla, enhanced the amount of compensation substantially. The State assailed it in an appeal before this Court (R, R A. No 64 of 1974). The appeal was allowed by a Division Bench which sent the matter back to the learned District Judge for a decision afresh This was by judgment dated September 14, 1977. 4. The matter was examined again by the learned District Judge who made an Award on November 24, 1977, It is this Award which is under challenge in the present appeal. 5. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation for the entire area at the rate of Rs. 2,590 per bigha. In addition, he awarded a sum of Rs. 25,584 for the house structure, latrine and water storage tank standing on the acquired area ; a sum of Rs. 15,783 for the retaining walls on the land ; a sum of Rs. 28,313 50 for the fruit trees and Rs. 4,000 by way of what was described by him as "disturbance grant". Solatium was granted at 15% of the compensation amount relating to land. 6. 15,783 for the retaining walls on the land ; a sum of Rs. 28,313 50 for the fruit trees and Rs. 4,000 by way of what was described by him as "disturbance grant". Solatium was granted at 15% of the compensation amount relating to land. 6. The learned District Judge, in his judgment and order under challenge in the present appeal, determined the compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha. He, however, took the view that the appellant was not entitled to any amount by way of compensation separately for the retaining and boundary walls or the structures and water storage tank standing on the land and even for the fruit trees He also felt that no amount was payable to the appellant separately by way of disturbance grant Since, however, the amount of compensation which had been awarded to the appellant by the Land Acquisition Collector could not be reduced by the learned District Judge, the ultimate order passed by the learned Judge, to quote his own words, was that: "To sum up we may take stock of the above valuation of different items of petitioners acquired property, I have not disturbed the compensation awarded in respect of the building structures, tank, fruit trees and for rehabilitation grant and have upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector for these items Regarding retaining and boundary walls, I have denied the amount for retaining and boundary walls being separately calculated in addition to the value of the land as such, which has been assessed at the rate of Rs, 3,000 per bigha in place of Rs. 2,590 awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector But here again the value of orchard land measuring 6 bighas 15 biswas is included in the fruit trees valuation and is not to be calculated as land value in addition. The Land Acquisition Collector has paid Rs. 88,70750 paisa as the land price of 34 bighas 5 biswas plus for retaining walls Rs 15,783. This totals Rs. lt04%490 50 parse whereas according to the value assessed by me in this award it comes to Rs. 82,500 for 27 bighas 10 biswas (34 bighas 5 biswas less 6 bighas 15 biswas orchard) at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha In this way the petitioner gets award of lesser amount than made by the Land Acquisition Collector. lt04%490 50 parse whereas according to the value assessed by me in this award it comes to Rs. 82,500 for 27 bighas 10 biswas (34 bighas 5 biswas less 6 bighas 15 biswas orchard) at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha In this way the petitioner gets award of lesser amount than made by the Land Acquisition Collector. But in the absence of the reference petition on the side of the Government the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector remains un-affected. Of course Rs. 1,00.000 received by the petitioner under the orders of the Honble High Court dated November 7, 1974 out of the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the learned predecessor Court vide award dated 20-6-1974, shall have to be refunded by the petitioner. He may return this amount within three months from today, otherwise the legal process shall be issued for its recovery under law through enforcement of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner for its restoration I leave the parties to their respective costs in this case. The file be consigned to records.." 7. Shri Dev Darshan Sood, appearing for the appellant before us, has assailed the Award made by the learned District Judge on various grounds According to him, the learned Judge fell In error in respect of his conclusion about each head of compensation which was payable to the appellant. We shall consider these itemwise : Structures Including Retaining Wall : The compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of structures standing on the acquired land, namely, house structures, latrine and water storage tank as well as for the retaining wall totalled to a sum of Rs. 41,367. 8. The evidence which had been brought on the record of this case in respect of these items consists of the oral statement of Shri S K. Mitra, a retired Chief Engineer of the Municipal Committee, Shimla, as PW 1 and of appellant himself as PW 3, When we look at the statement of Shri Mitra (PW 1) we find it stated that he had seen the property In question on two occasions, namely, May 14,1973 and May 27, 1973 and had prepared the plans of the property after taking measurements. These plans have been proved on the record as Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. These plans have been proved on the record as Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. He also prepared the details of the measurements of the retaining wall and brought them on the record as Ex P4 He then prepared a valuation report Ex. P5. This valuation report is a detailed document containing specifications as well as the basis of valuation The total valuation of the building, latrine, water storage tank and retaining wall has been found to be Rs 63,400 in this report. 9. Shri Mitra was cross-examined on behalf of the State but there is nothing in it to suggest that the valuation, which was made by him in accordance with the HP PWD scheduled rates of 1968, was erroneous in any manner. We have no reason not to accept the valuation put by Shri Mitra on the building structures, latrine, water storage tank and retaining wall cumulatively at Rs. 63,400. 10. The State also adduced oral evidence in the form of the statement of Shri J. K. Dhir, a retired Assistant Engineer from HP PWD as RW 2 on this aspect of the case. He had been deputed to visit the spot for valuation of the building which he did. He was accompanied only by a Kanungo at the time of inspection. Neither the appellant nor any one else on behalf of the appellant was associated in this inspection. Shri Dhir made his own assessments and prepared the estimates which have been brought on the record as Ex. RW 2/A and Ex. RW 2/B. 11. During his cross-examination, while appearing as RW 2 in the case, Shri Dhir stated that the assessment of the age of the building and the water tank as well as latrine was made by him on the basis of facts gathered from the enquiry conducted by him from local residents but he could not disclose their identity. He also said that he did not prepare any rough notes on the spot. The further statement made by Shri Dhir is that there was a retaining wall on the land of the petitioner but he was not appointed to measure or evaluate them. After going through his statement in its entirety as well as that of PW 1 Shri S K Mitra we feel that the statement of the latter, who is a retired Chief Engineer of the Municipal Committee, Shimla, is preferable. After going through his statement in its entirety as well as that of PW 1 Shri S K Mitra we feel that the statement of the latter, who is a retired Chief Engineer of the Municipal Committee, Shimla, is preferable. We are inclined to place reliance on it for our conclusion that the correct valuation of the building structure, latrine, water storage tank and the retaining wall should be accepted to be Rs. 63,400 and not Rs 41,367 which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and accepted by the learned District Judge. Compensation for Fruit Trees : 12. A sum of Rs 28,313.50 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector under this Head. The claim of the petitioner-appellant about it is of Rs. 2,50,000. The claim is founded on the assessment made by Shri Prem Sagar, retired Deputy Director of Agriculture who entered the witness box as PW 2 as an expert valuer on behalf of the claimant as well as the statement made by the claimant himself as PW 3. 13. PW 2, Shri Prem Sagar, stated that he had visited Kasumpti where the orchard of the claimant existed and had inspected the fruit plants which were then in existence. When he made the visit, he found that the plants were neglected and were not being maintained properly. Branches of some plants had been lopped off. He last visited the orchard on May 26,1973. The petitioner as well as PW 1, Shri S. K. Mitra, had accompanied him, 14. The witness stated that he bad prepared the valuation report on basic principles and method of valuation of the fruit trees as approved by the Director of Agriculture H.P. and Director of Agriculture Punjab. The basis of his assessment has been disclosed in Ex. P7 for the valuation report Ex P6. A classification of the fruit trees is contained in Ex. P8. A look at the valuation report (Ex. P6) shows that the total value has been put at Rs. l,25,093 in respect of the trees, 15. The basis of his assessment has been disclosed in Ex. P7 for the valuation report Ex P6. A classification of the fruit trees is contained in Ex. P8. A look at the valuation report (Ex. P6) shows that the total value has been put at Rs. l,25,093 in respect of the trees, 15. The evaluation of fruit trees has been made by (PW 2) Shri Prem Sagar on the basis of what is known as "Harbans Singh Formula", A photostat copy of the formula, as given in the Article "Evaluation of Fruit Trees—Basic Principles and Method" by Harbans Singh, has been adopted by the Director of Agriculture for the assessment of fruit trees in the State. The Article is a detailed one. By way of the final assessment of a tree the formula suggested is : "Basic value of the tree + No. of remaining bearing year X Income per year x ¼ + Fuel value 16. The submission on behalf of the claimant-appellant has been that the valuation of the fruit trees made by PW 2, Shri Prem Sagar having been made on the above basis, which principles and method have been accepted by the Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh, the amount of Rs. 1,25,093 should be awarded to the claimant under this head. The submission, on the contrary on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh has been that the same formula has been adopted by RW I, Shri N. C. Khosla, District Horticulture Officer, Shimla, who put the value of the fruit trees at Rs. 28,313 50 which was the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It should, therefore, be upheld 17. We find it stated by Shri N. C. Khosla (RW 1) in his deposition on oath that he visited the orchard of the claimant in August 1970 in the company of the petitioner and one Horticulture Inspector Balak Ram. He spent two or three hours at the spot and counted every plant which was existing at that time. We find it stated by Shri N. C. Khosla (RW 1) in his deposition on oath that he visited the orchard of the claimant in August 1970 in the company of the petitioner and one Horticulture Inspector Balak Ram. He spent two or three hours at the spot and counted every plant which was existing at that time. He got the list of the trees from the Land Acquisition Collector giving Khasra numbers and details and assessed the value of the fruit trees on the basis of the rules prepared by the Horticulture Department, A copy of the relevant valuation report has been filed as Ex RW I/A by him We were taken through this document by Shri M. L Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, with a view to show that having regard to the kind and age of the plant, as well as the category to which it belonged, the value put by Shri Khosla for the various plants was in accordance with the Harbans Singh formula. We may only notice that 45 apple plants of three years age standing in Khasra No. 499/294 have been valued by Shri Khosla at Rs. 900 which shows the value of each plant to be Rs, 20. According to Shri Chauhan, the basic value of the apple plant as per the appendix to the Article containing Harbans Singh formula, noticed earlier, was Rs 5 as non-recurring and Rs 5 per year of age as the recurring price In the case of an apple plant of three years age the price, we feel, has rightly been taken as Rs 20 per plant because before the apple tree comes into bearing stage in the sixth year It is not possible to give it any value other than the basic value. This is for the reason that till the trees comes into the bearing stage, the tree cannot be put into a particular class at all so as to be able to determine its average yearly income on that account, We may mention here that, according to Harbans Singh formula, the value of Class II tree is 75 % of Class I, that of Class III, 50% of Class I, and of Class IV tree 40% of Class I, of Class V tree 30% of Class I and of Class VI it is 20% or below of that of Class I. In Ex, RW I/A prepared by RW 1, Shri Khosla, we find that the value of one apple tree of the age of 8 years and belonging to Class VI standing in Khasra No. 501/302 has been shown at Rs. 245. This is in accordance with the Harbans Singh formula which gives yearly income for Class I tree at Rs. 100 and the fruit bearing life of an apple tree at 45 years. The yearly income from a Class VI apple tree would be 20% of the value of a Class I tree As such, it would be Rs 5 in the case of the apple plant standing in Khasra No. 501/302. The remaining number of bearing years beyond 8 being 39, applying the Harbans Singh formula, the income from the remaining bearing years would be Rs. 39x20x1/4 =Rs 195 The fuel value would be Rs. 20. The basic value would be Rs 30 (Rs 5 + Rs. 25=5 years x Rs. 5). The total value of the tree thus being Rs. 245. 18. 39x20x1/4 =Rs 195 The fuel value would be Rs. 20. The basic value would be Rs 30 (Rs 5 + Rs. 25=5 years x Rs. 5). The total value of the tree thus being Rs. 245. 18. Since RW 1, Shri N. C. Khosla, had visited the orchard in August 1970, a few months after the notification under section 4 and a little before issuance of the declaration under section 6 through notification dated September 25, 1970, in the presence of the claimant and had counted every plant which existed at that time before preparing the valuation report, we find ourselves unable to accept the plea made on behalf of the claimant-appellant that the valuation report prepared by RW 1 Shri Khosla should not have been accepted in preference to the evaluation of the fruit trees made by PW 2, Prem Sagar, We find no error in the acceptance of the valuation report prepared by RW 1, Shri Khosla by the Land Acquisition Collector. We are inclined to accept it in preference to the one made by PW 2, Shri Prem Sagar. The claimant can be held entitled only to a sum of Rs. 28,313,50 as compensation for the fruit trees. The Claim under the head of Disturbance’ 19. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector under this head was Rs. 4,000. The claimant asked for it at Rs. 30,000, No evidence was, however, led on behalf of the claimant in support of this claim. The compensation has, therefore, to be confined to Rs. 4,000 as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Compensation for Land : 20. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation for the entire area of 34 bighas 5 biswas of land of the claimant at the rate of Rs 2,590 per bigha He has worked out the average price on the basis of evidence brought before him in the form of two mutations Ex. RW 3/1 and Ex RW 3/2 for Ghasni land at the rate of Rs 527 48 paisa per bigha and at the rate of Rs 2,590 for Lehri Awal, that is, first class cultivated land The Award has been made by him for the entire land, that is, cultivable and Ghasni at Rs. 2590 per bigha as the Ian4 had been acquired for building purposes. 2590 per bigha as the Ian4 had been acquired for building purposes. Exts RW 3/1 and RW 3/2 are mutations relating to sale transactions of the year 1968 in village Kasutnpti-Junga adjoining the main Kasumpti village The area covered by Ex RW 3/1 is below the main road by 220 yards. Even though the average price, of the two sales represented by these documents, comes to Rs. 1,450 per bigha, yet, the Land Acquisition Collector accepted the rate of Rs 2,590 relating to first class cultivated land for the entire area on account of its building potential. 21. On behalf of the claimant-appellant two exemplars Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-10 relating to two sales dated November 18, 1968 were brought on the record. Both of these are mutations relating to sales covering 2 biswas of land made by the petitioner out of his land which was acquired through the notifications of January 6, 1970 (under section 4) and September 25, 1970 (under section 6) of the Land Acquisition Act. The price paid to the claimant-petitioner in respect of these sales was Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,500 respectively, 22. Both the sales aforesaid have been held to be fictitious by the learned District Judge. The reason which he gave was that the claimant himself was the solitary witness to these sales and the purchasers did not appear before the Court at all No other witness in whose presence the sale transaction had been negotiated and executed came forward to state about it. The so called purchasers. S/Shri Dev Raj and Dhian Singh did not file any objection, as owners of the land, against the Award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.590 per bigha which, in the case of land said to have been purchased by them, came to Rs, 251 for two his was of land each. They have not assailed the quantum of compensation by claiming a reference under section 18 either. 23. "It has to be remembered that the claimants in a reference under section 18 of the Act are in the position of plaintiffs. The onus of proving the issue is on them. It was for them to prove that the transaction in question was genuine and bond fide........For that purpose it was not enough to produce the seller. 23. "It has to be remembered that the claimants in a reference under section 18 of the Act are in the position of plaintiffs. The onus of proving the issue is on them. It was for them to prove that the transaction in question was genuine and bond fide........For that purpose it was not enough to produce the seller. It was necessary to examine the purchaser also." (.See The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Daulat Ram Attri, AIR 1981 HP 71 (DB)]. "The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose,.......The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value... ...” (See Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another etc, etc., AIR 1988 SC 1652. 24. The submission on behalf of the claimant-appellant has been that like the mutations relied upon by the State (Exts. RW 3/1 and RW 3/2) the mutations brought on the record by the claimant, namely, Ex P-9 and Ex. P-10 were admissible evidence of the two sales having been recorded in accordance with section 35 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, Since these mutations had been entered after following the procedure prescribed by law the bonafide character of sales, though made by the claimant himself in the year 1968, deserved to be accepted as proper exemplar for assessing compensation for land. It was also urged that the average price per bigha, on account of the price paid for the transactions evidenced by these two mutations, worked out at Rs. 27,300 per bigha. It was also urged that the average price per bigha, on account of the price paid for the transactions evidenced by these two mutations, worked out at Rs. 27,300 per bigha. This should be accepted as the correct price, for the land was situate in Kasumpti area which was otherwise a well developed area and the acquired land had the potential as building site for which purpose it was actually acquired. 25. Apart from the fact that the authentic nature of these transactions has been doubted by the learned District Judge for good reasons, it is to be noticed that the area covered by these sale transactions was infinitesimal (being two biswas each) as compared to the vast area acquired (little over 91 bighas) through the notification under section 4 which included the large area of the claimant himself (34 bighas 5 biswas) for which compensation is being claimed in these proceedings The exemplar is not comparable, It is trite that a small plot cannot be compared with large tract or block of land- For one, a small plot is within the reach of many while the large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the like’. (See : Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another etc. etc , AIR 1988 SC 1632). 26. Relying upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bapurao, AIR 1973 Bom 231, and another of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nagar Palika, Mandsaur, AIR 1981 MP 263, it was urged on behalf of the claimant-appellant by his learned Counsel that the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolutely correct and determination of compensation on the basis of the value of small plots of land is not illegal. There is no quarrel with this proposition but the fact remains that in the present case the sales evidenced by Exts. P-9 and P-10 cannot be treated as exemplars particularly for the reason that their authenticity is open to doubt. As mentioned earlier, they were sales made by the claimant himself and to persons who never appeared before the Court in support of the transactions. 27. P-9 and P-10 cannot be treated as exemplars particularly for the reason that their authenticity is open to doubt. As mentioned earlier, they were sales made by the claimant himself and to persons who never appeared before the Court in support of the transactions. 27. Normally, if the evidence adduced by the claimant is rejected, the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Collector should be upheld, (See : Chaturbhuj Pande and others v. Collector Raigarh, AIR 1969 SG 255). 28. In the present case the claimant-appellant has entered the witness box as PW 3 He has stated that the boundaries of the acquired land adjoin Kasumpti bazar and just below the acquired land there is a motorable road which goes from Kasumpti to Junga besides two other roads, one leading to Parimahal and the other to adjoining villages. He has also stated that he was cultivating vegetable in the cultivable position of the land and had planted an orchard on a part thereof. 29. During his cross-examination the claimant admitted that the land in question was in slopy area Further, that he had seen one of the vendees, Dev Raj, once or twice during the acquisition proceedings but had not seen the other vendee Dhian Singh during it. Both the vendees were alive, according to PW 3 and one of them Dev Raj was in Shimla and the other Dhian Singh was in Jammu when the evidence was being recorded. The statement of RW 1, Shri N. C. Khosla, shows that the acquired area was steep and slopy though the land was situate just behind the Kasumpti bazar. 30. The learned District Judge has, as noticed earlier, awarded compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha. We may reproduce a part of that he says about it (in paragraph 20 of his judgment) : "As noticed already, the Land Acquisition Collector did not keep in view the potential of the land with its possibility for building purposes due to expansion of Shimla town It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that agricultural land price will be lesser than building site price, near to an urban area. According to the local conditions, the difference between good agricultural quality land to the building site land area would vary to the higher side in the latter case from 50% to about 100%. According to the local conditions, the difference between good agricultural quality land to the building site land area would vary to the higher side in the latter case from 50% to about 100%. We have an authority Ala 1977 SC 580, Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, wherein agricultural land area adjoining to Amritsar city was acquired for expansion of Medical College Amritsar. So taking cue from this authority I take that the value of the land area with building petential will be about double than the agricultural land in Simla hilly conditions...... Having regard to the fact that the petitioners land area was almost slopy as established on evidence in the case and verified on my spot inspection also, 40% deduction shall have to be made for arriving at the net price as building site land area in this case, The price so worked comes to Rs. 3,000 per bigha......." 31. In the absence of any cogent evidence brought on the record by the claimant-appellant we are inclined to accept the value of Rs. 3,000 per bigha, put by the learned District Judge, for the acquired land to determine its market value. 32. We may consider at this stage the prayer made on behalf of the claimant-appellant for being permitted to bring on record a judgment dated July 30, 1982 by the learned District Judge Shimla in which he had accepted Rs. 8,000 per bigha as the market price for some land acquired through the same notification under which the land involved in the present case was acquired. This was sought to be placed on the record by way of additional evidence but it was seriously objected to on behalf of the State both as regards its value as a comparable exemplar as well as its acceptance by way of additional evidence. We feel that allowing the prayer for acceptance of this exemplar, by way of additional evidence, would not be proper. We feel that allowing the prayer for acceptance of this exemplar, by way of additional evidence, would not be proper. We are not unmindful of the dictum of the Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 1526, that: "...There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable to it to pronounce judgment", it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner." And that, "...Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence "for any other substantial cause" under Rule 27 (I) (b) of the Code." Yet, we feel that in the facts of the present case where evidence has been brought on the record by the Land Acquisition Collector, which has been accepted by the learned District Judge and is sufficient to enable us to arrive at a correct market value for the acquired land within the scope of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and, the nature, topography and the location of the acquired land is such that the value of Rs. 3,000 per bigha therefor on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act, namely, January 6, 1970 can be held to be reasonable, we would not be inclined to allow the prayer for additional evidence being placed on the record of the appeal made on behalf of the claimant. Relief : 33. In conclusion, we hold that the claimant-appellant is entitled to compensation as under : I. Land t 34.5 bighas at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha Rs, 1,02,750.00 2. Structures (including retaining wall) Rs. 63,40000 3. Fruit trees Rs. 28,314.00 4. Disturbance Rs. 4,000.00 5. Solatium at the rate of 15% Rs. 19,749.60 or say Rs. 19,750.00 Total Rs. 2,18,214.00 34. The appeal shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, over and above the amount which has already been received by him including the amount of Rs. 19,749.60 or say Rs. 19,750.00 Total Rs. 2,18,214.00 34. The appeal shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, over and above the amount which has already been received by him including the amount of Rs. 100,000 which had been released to the claimant under the orders of this Court dated September 14, 1977, from the date of possession (November 11, 1971) till the date of payment. The appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs, to the extent of his success, in this Court.