JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.— Out of these appeals, 83 appeals have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, assailing as many as 12 awards of the District Judge, Solan, given in different land acquisition reference cases, in respect of land acquired for the establishment of Agriculture complex, which was subsequently converted into Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry. Claimants have preferred Cross appeals, R.F. As. Nos. 43 of 1991, 2 of 1992 and 133 of 1992 praying for enhancement of the award amount. In R F. As. No. 262 of 1991 and 6b of 1992, cross-objections have been filed for enhancement of compensation. 2. In all the 12 awards of the District Judge, the market value of the acquired land, has been assessed at a uniform rate for each category of land. The learned Advocate General stated at the bar that out of these appeals, the main case is R.F.A. No. 81 of 1991 filed by the State to which Cross-appeal, R.F.A. No. 43 of 1991 has been preferred by the claimants, for enhancement of the compensation in respect of land as well as trees According to him, the decision in these two appeals, in respect of market value of the acquired land, will be applicable to all other appeals because the award dated 5-10-1990 challenged in these appeals is the basis for the subsequent 11 awards delivered on different dates by the District Judge. The State has not challenged the awards of the District Judge. On other items, such as, buildings, trees etc., etc. This statement of the learned Advocate General has not been controverted by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in these appeals. We have ourselves examined the awards and found that though the District Judge has discussed the evidence produced in each group of reference cases for determining the market value of the land, yet, he has relied upon two sale transactions which are common in all groups of cases tried by him. These two sale transactions, besides other evidence, have been produced and proved in each group of reference cases, except the group in which award dated 4-3-1991 was given, in which the District Judge has relied upon the award dated 5-10-1990, a certified copy of which was placed on record as Ex. P-Z/14. In view of this position, we have heard the learned Advocate General and Sh. P-Z/14. In view of this position, we have heard the learned Advocate General and Sh. K.D. Sood in R.F.A. No. 81 of 1991 and R.F.A. No. 43 of 1991 and examined the record in Land Reference No 1-S/4 of 1979, Devi Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in other appeals We find that if the compensation for the acquired land in the award dated 5-10-1990 stands judicial scrutiny, the decision will apply to all other appeals and we need not examine each case separately but if we set aside the said award, we will have to analyse the evidence in each group of reference cases, in which subsequent 11 awards were given. 3. The acquired land measuring 5505-6 Bighas is spread over between State Highway Solan-Rajgarh Road and Oachghat-Narag Road on two sides. The acquired land forms part of fourteen villages, namely, Nando, Oach, Phangari, Majhargari, Bagaur, Nauni-Majhgaon, Padan, Ucha-gaon, Nangari, Kharkog, Masaria Majhgaon, Damarau, Shamroor and Bhajan. For its acquisition, Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on 13-7-1971. The award under section 11 of the Act was given on 1010-1974 by the then Land Acquisition Collector, Solan The Collector divided the acquired land into two sectors on the basis of location, distance from road and market and other factors relevant for determining the market value of the land. He also categorised the land as Kuhl, Katul, Hangar I, Ban gar II, Bangar III, Banjar Kadim and Ghasni/Charand and Ghair Mumkin. Though he made assessment of the market value of different kinds of land, yet, he awarded uniform rate of Rs 500 per Bigha in respect of land of the categories Bangar II, Bangar III, Banjar Kadim, Ghasni/Charand and Ghair Mumkin because the market value of these categories as per his assessment was nominal and the Government had taken a decision that no person would get less than Rs 500 per Bigha as compensation for the acquired land. However, for other categories, he had awarded as under :— Kuhl Katul Bangar I Sector 1 : 1261.87 698.53 630 93 Sector 2 : 1254.40 974 40 694.40 4. However, for other categories, he had awarded as under :— Kuhl Katul Bangar I Sector 1 : 1261.87 698.53 630 93 Sector 2 : 1254.40 974 40 694.40 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Collector, the claimants filed land reference cases in the Court of the District Judge, which were decided by different awards given on different dates by the District Judge but the later awards were based on the award dated 30-7-1981 given by District Judge, Sh. H.D. Kainthla in a land reference case (Ex. P-1). These awards, challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as by the claimants by filing a number of appeals, were set aside by judgment dated 5-1-1990 passed by the then learned Chief Justice P.C. Balakrishna Menon. 5. In his award dated 30-7-1981 (Ex. P-l), the District Judge, on the basis of his spot inspection, has made the following observations in Para 17, in respect of location and other advantages of the acquired land :— “.........the acquired lands are spread over and situated with similar advantageous position on the right side of Solan-Rajgarh road as well as Solan-Narag-Sarahan road and the water supply sources for Kuhal’ from Khuds are available. So the division of the acquired land in two sectors is found irrelevant and the entire lands are taken as having similar situation except for those Khasra Nos. which actually abut the two road sides. For that particular and special benefit of special situation 10% premium, over and above the market value, to be fixed for the land is justified and awardable." The District Judge found that the categorization of acquired land in two sectors was without reasonable basis and unwarranted. He rejected the assessment of the Land Acquisition Collector, which was based on five-yearly average price, on the ground that it was not a proper method of assessment of market value, as there were not many sales within a reasonable period, earlier to the acquisition and adopted the other method of capitalizing the annual income on rental basis by 20 years purchase or multiplier. For the productivity of the lands and their income, the District Judge relied upon the evidence of Ajit Singh (PW 4) and K.D. Premi, Office Kanungo (PW 12) besides the statements of parties, and came to the conclusion that the annual income of the land per Bigha on rental was Rs. For the productivity of the lands and their income, the District Judge relied upon the evidence of Ajit Singh (PW 4) and K.D. Premi, Office Kanungo (PW 12) besides the statements of parties, and came to the conclusion that the annual income of the land per Bigha on rental was Rs. 200 and applying the multiplier of 20, the market value of the land was assessed at Rs per Bigha. He also took into account the sale transactions Exs. 1 to RW 7/5 and came to the conclusion that average price of the land category of Kuhl, was about Rs. 2,000 per Bigha Taking an average 4,000, found on capitalizing the annual value, and Rs. 2,000 on the sale transactions, he arrived at the market value of the acquitted at Rs, 3,000 per Bigha, for all categories 6. This Court in its judgment dated 5-1-1990 rejected the method adopted by the District Judge ma the reason that out of the acquired land, which consisted of eighiories and situated in fourteen villages, only 196 Bighas was of the gory of Kuhl-I and 35 Bighas of Kuhl-2 ; and as the major portion of the measuring about 2126 Bighas was of the category of Banjar Kadirn, x.asni/Ghair Mumkin which was not even cultivable,—to estimate the income of all these lands at a flat late of Rs. 2,00) per Bigha was "perfunctory and cannot bear scrutiny". Learned Judge P. C Balakrishna Menon, C.J, also found the multiplier of 20 adopted by the District Judge, for the purpose of capitalization, wrong in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Smt. Shanti Devi etc., AIR 1983 SC 1190 and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerbhadarappa etc., AIR 1984 SC 774. The sale transactions Exs RW 7/3 to RW 7/5 relied upon by the District Judge, for arriving at the average market value of the acquired land, were also rejected. 7. The operative portion of the judgment of learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J. was that :— "The average upon averages is the method adopted by the learned Judge, 1 find it most unrealistic and cannot be accepted for the purpose of determining compensation /or the different classes of land involved in the acquisition. 7. The operative portion of the judgment of learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J. was that :— "The average upon averages is the method adopted by the learned Judge, 1 find it most unrealistic and cannot be accepted for the purpose of determining compensation /or the different classes of land involved in the acquisition. Since the evidence adduced in the case by the respective claimants had not been considered by the reference court, I am inclined to accede to the request of the learned Counsel for the claimants for a remand of these cases for fresh determination by the reference court. I, therefore, set aside the respective awards in these cases and remand these cases to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations and directions contained in this judgment. The court-fee paid in these appeals will be refunded to the respective counsel for the appellants. The parties shall appear before the court below on 21-2-1990. The parties may adduce fresh evidence. Since the matters have become sufficiently old, it is directed that the court below will give precedence to these references and shall post the same for trial from day to day without giving any adjournment to the parties and dispose the references within six months after the receipt of the records by that court." 8 After remand, the claimants fin R, F. As. No. 81 of 1991 and 43 of 1991) examined two witnesses PW 11 and PW 12 on 12-7-1990. PW 11 is Prem Chand, office Kanungo, Tehsil Office Solan, from whom Takhmina Paidawar of the relevant period was summoned, which he could not produce as it was destroyed. PW 12 Ajit Singh has stated that the acquired laud falls in between two road, one leading from Solan to Rajgarh and another leading from Oachghat to Narag. According to him, irrespective of the quality of the land being irrigated or unirrigated, farmers cultivate two crops in a year. In the category of Kuhl, two crops, namely, Cauliflower for seed purposes, followed by Maize and Tomatoes, followed by Peas are grown, whereas in unirrigated land the two crops are of Maize and Wheat. He has further stated that Cauliflower crop followed by Maize used to give an income of Rs 5,000 per Bigha at the relevant, time, whereas Tomato crop followed by Peas, used to fetch Rs. He has further stated that Cauliflower crop followed by Maize used to give an income of Rs 5,000 per Bigha at the relevant, time, whereas Tomato crop followed by Peas, used to fetch Rs. 3,000 per Bigha and the Wheat crop used to give net income of Rs. 600 to Rs. 700 per Bigha He has also produced documents Ex PZ/32 to PZ/35 to prove that he had been dealing in the production and sale of Cauliflower seed and its price in the year 1970-71, In cross-examination, he has given the inputs for growing cauliflower and Tomato on the basis of his experience, which he acquired in his farm at Village Parahan, A copy of award dated 21-2-1979, Ex. PZ-1, which pertains to the land measuring 147 Sq Metres situated at Kalka-Shimla road, was also placed on record with the statement of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants. In rebuttal, the learned District Attorney only tendered copies of sale-deeds, Ex. DX-1 to DX-4 and statements and map showing the distance of different plots of acquired land from roads, Ex. DX-5 to DX-7. 9. The District Judge, considering the evidence produced after remand as well as the evidence already on record, gave his award dated 5-10-1990 He assessed the market value of different kinds of land as under:— (i) Bangar II, Bangar III Banjar Kadim, Ghasni, Charand and Ghair Mumkin. Rs. 4,000 Per Bigha (ii) Bangar I. Rs. 5,000 Per Bigha (iii) Katul II. Rs. 5,200 Per Bigha (iv) Katul I. Rs. 5,400 Per Bigha (v) Kuhl. Rs. 5,600 Per Bigha 10 The District Judge, for assessment of the market value, discarded all other instances of sales for the reasons stated in Paragraph 14 of his award and relied upon sale-deeds dated 17-4-1971 Exts. PY and PZ by comparing the distance of the acquired land from Solan-Rajgarh road as well as location, surroundings and other advantages. He has also given 50% deduction for formation of roads and other development activities. In the sale-deeds Ex. PY and PZ, the land measuring 5 Biswas each was sold at the rate of Rs 8,000 per Bigha and after 50% deduction, the market value assessed by the District Judge was Rs 4,000 per Bigha for Ghasni land. He has also given 50% deduction for formation of roads and other development activities. In the sale-deeds Ex. PY and PZ, the land measuring 5 Biswas each was sold at the rate of Rs 8,000 per Bigha and after 50% deduction, the market value assessed by the District Judge was Rs 4,000 per Bigha for Ghasni land. According to him, compensation at the same rate was required to be assessed in respect of Bangar II, Bangar III, Banjar Kadim, Ghasni/Charand and Ghair Mumkin categories of land, since all these are of the same potential value. However, for the other categories of land, namely, Bangar I, Katul II, Katul I and Kuhl, which are of greater potential and utility, value as compared to the other categories mentioned earlier, premium of 25%, 30%, 35% and 40% respectively, was given for assessing their market value. Now, this assessment is under challenge in the present appeals. 11. Sh. Indar Singh, learned Advocate General, has urged that the assessment of the market value of the land made by the District Judge on the basis of two sale transactions Exs PY and PZ stood already discarded by learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J. by his judgment dated 5-1-1990. Another challenge laid to these documents is that these were only tendered in evidence and were not proved by producing any vendor or vendee According to the learned Advocate General, these do not pertain to genuine sales, which were made in favour of the son of the claimant Devi Chand, the most interested person. He also points out that these sale transactions could not be the basis for determining the market price of different plots of acquired land without taking into account their location and other advantages, which are relevant considerations for determining the market value. The learned Advocate General points out that if these two sale transactions relied upon by the District Judge are rejected, his award is based upon no evidence and deserves to be set aside. He further argues that the District Judge has rightly not adopted the method of capitalization, as it stood rejected in the judgment dated 5-1-1990 of this Court and there is no material on record to assess per Bigha annual income of the acquired land on rental basis. 12. On the other hand, Sh. He further argues that the District Judge has rightly not adopted the method of capitalization, as it stood rejected in the judgment dated 5-1-1990 of this Court and there is no material on record to assess per Bigha annual income of the acquired land on rental basis. 12. On the other hand, Sh. Kapil Dev Sood, learned Counsel, has urged that in the facts and circumstances proved on record, the best method to calculate the market value of the acquired land, was the method of capitalization for which besides oral statements of claimant Devi Chand PW 1, Mani Ram PW 2, Harish Chander PW 5, M.L. Khurana PW 9 and Ajit Singh PW 12, there are documents Exs. PZ-32 to PZ-35, Bills Exs. P-l to P-20, PW 5/B to PW 5/D and PW 8/A to PW 8/H to prove the income from the acquired land on the basis of which the rental value could be calculated. He has also drawn our attention to Khasra Girdwari, Ex. P-A, on record, which not only contains kind of land but also the crop grown and the produce thereof, to show the income from the acquired land. In nutshell, his submission is that from Kuhl land, where two crops of Cauliflower, followed by Maize and Tainato, followed by Peas are grown, the average income is Rs. 4,000 per Bigha ; by applying multiplier of 12 at the minimum rate, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 48,000 ; further by allowing deduction of 50% towards the cost of production and other factors, such as, fluctuations of market, failure of rains etc. etc., the market value conies to Rs. 24,000 per Bigha, whereas the District Judge has awarded only Rs. 5,600 per Bigha. Shri K. D. Sood, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of claimants in these two appeals (R. F. As. No. 81 of 1991 and 43 of 1991), also has pointed out that out of their total land of 68 8 Bighas, only 7.3 Bighas was Ghasni land and the remaining was land under cultivation. According to Sh. Sood, in the judgment dated 5-1-1990, learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J., had not discarded the method of capitalization, but held that it could not be applied to the totality of acquired land, in view of proportion of land under cultivation to Ghasni land, 13. According to Sh. Sood, in the judgment dated 5-1-1990, learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J., had not discarded the method of capitalization, but held that it could not be applied to the totality of acquired land, in view of proportion of land under cultivation to Ghasni land, 13. After giving our best consideration to the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J, had not discarded the method of capitalization, but his Lordship did not find it realistic and acceptable, for determining compensation, for different classes of acquired land. In the award before the learned Judge, the rental value of the acquired land was assessed on the basis of sole statement of witness Ajit Singh, who had deposed that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per Bigha for a plot of land in village Parahan, where he was growing Cauliflower seed. To this rental income, multiplier of 20 was applied to arrive at the market value of the land at Rs 4,000 per Bigha. The learned Judge, after taking note that major portion of the land was not cultivable, observed that, "To estimate the income of all these lands at flat rate of Rs 200 per Bigha is, to say the least, perfunctory and cannot bear scrutiny. The learned Judge further found the multiplier of 20 adopted for the purpose of capitalization wrong in the light of decision of the Supreme Court Therefore, we hold that the method of capitalization is one of the approved methods of assessment of the market value of the acquired land, but we do not accept the submission made by Sh. Sood that this method was most appropriate to assess the market value of the acquired land in the present case. Sood that this method was most appropriate to assess the market value of the acquired land in the present case. The Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429, has recognised the following three methods of ascertaining the market value of the acquired land :— ".........It is not disputed that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain in the market value of the land at the date of the notification under section 4 (1) and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired " 14. The District Judge was free to adopt any of these approved methods of assessing the market value of the acquired land keeping in view the evidence produced before him. The only point for consideration by this Court is whether the sale transactions relied upon by the District Judge are bona fide and comparable with similar advantages. It is correct that certified copies of sale-deeds in respect of these transactions (Exs. PY and PZ) were tendered in evidence by the claimant, but statement of neither the vendor nor the vendee was recorded in all cases. In both these sale-deeds, vendors are different, whereas the Vendee Chandan Lal son of Devi Chand Mehta, original claimant, is the same person. Devi Chand Mehta has died during the pendency of these appeals and his legal representatives have been brought on record. By both these sale-deeds, the Vendors had sold 5 Biswas of land each at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per Bigha. Form the endorsement made on the back of these sale-deeds, it appears that Devi Chand Mehta, father of the Vendee, was present and made the payment of sale consideration. Devi Chand Mehta has appeared in support of his claim as PW 1 and placed on record certified copies of mutations Exs. PC and PD in respect of these two sale transactions. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the land sold by these sale-deeds is of the same village in which the acquired land is situated. Devi Chand Mehta has appeared in support of his claim as PW 1 and placed on record certified copies of mutations Exs. PC and PD in respect of these two sale transactions. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the land sold by these sale-deeds is of the same village in which the acquired land is situated. No further cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the State that these transactions were not bona fide and the land sold was not comparable to the acquired land. However, from Ex. DX-5, a statement and a map showing distance of different plots of acquired land from Solan-Rajgarh road, it is clear that the land sold by these two sale-deeds is located at a distance of 38-56 Metres, whereas different plots of acquired land, including the land of claimant in these two appeals, is situated at a distance ranging from 20-16 metres to 288 metres from the said road, which shows that the lands sold by these two sale-deed are in the neighbourhood of the acquired land and its kind being similar, that is, Ghasni, it possessed same or similar potentiality or fertility. From the perusal of these two sale-deeds, mutations and other evidence on record, we find that there are no reasons to hold that these sale transactions were not between willing vendor and vendee and as such, not genuine and bona fide transactions. There is nothing on record to suggest that these sales were made to inflate the market value. 15. Further, the acquired land is situated between the two roads. By and large, its each portion has the same and similar advantages in respect of location, surroundings etc. etc. Therefore, the District Judge has found that the land sold under these two sale-deeds and the acquired land were comparable in respect of location, surroundings and other advantages. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned Advocate General from the record to show that the District Judge has erred in giving such a finding Other sale-deeds produced by the claimant as well as on behalf of the State, were rightly discarded by the District Judge for the reason that these were not comparable instances and did not pertain to the proximate period and place, to provide an index for the market value. 16. 16. So far potentiality and futility of different plots of acquired land is concerned, this is evident from the revenue record, which contains the classification made on this basis. The classification of acquired land into Kuhl, Katul 1, Katul II, Bangar 1 and Bangar II/Bangar III/Banjar Kadim/Ghasni/Charand/Ghair Mumkin made by the District Judge, has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. Therefore, we hold that the District Judge has rightly relied upon the sale transactions Exs. PY and PZ to determine the market value of Ghasni land at Rs. 4,000 per Bigha and for superior kinds of land, with premium allowed by him is also just and fair. 17. We do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Advocate General that for want of evidence of vendor and vendee, these two sale transactions could not be relied upon as bona fide and genuine sales. In view of the amended provisions of section 51-A of the Act, inserted by Act No. 68 of 1994, certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document and as such, it was not necessary to produce the vendor or the vendee to prove the transactions recorded in these sale-deeds. However, we have noticed that the vendors and the Vendees were examined in other group of reference cases, in which subsequent awards were passed. In the earlier judgment dated 5-1-1990 of learned P.C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J., these two sale transactions were neither referred to nor rejected as urged by the learned Advocate General. In fact, in the award dated 30-7-1981 which was before the learned Judge, these two transactions were not discussed and relied upon for assessing the market value of the acquired land. In the result, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate General to challenge the compensation awarded by the District Judge in respect of the acquired land The determination of the market value of the acquired land by the District Judge is legal, fair and just and no case has been made out for enhancement on behalf of the claimants. We have already held that in view of the evidence on record, the District Judge was right in adopting the method of assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of bona fide transactions of sale and purchase of lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages within a reasonable time from the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the claimants have not pointed out that the District Judge has wrongly rejected any sale transaction proved on record, which would have enabled them to claim enhanced compensation For arriving at these conclusions, we have been guided by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 ; Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another AIR 1988 SC 1652 and Gulzara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1993) 4 SCC 245, in which the principles for determination of the market value enunciated in the earlier judgments, have been consolidated. 18. Sh. Kapil Dev Sood appearing for the claimants in these two appeals, R.F. As. No. 81 of 1991 and 43 of 1991, has further urged that the District Judge has wrongly rejected the claim in respect of the fruit trees. According to him, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs. 2,38,587 for 1,374 fruit trees of different kinds on the basis of the evaluation done by the experts on which minimum 100% increase was required to be given keeping in view the rise in prices on the basis of increase in the All India Wholesale Price Index because for making evaluation, formula published in the year 1966 was relied upon. For making this submission, Sh. Sood has referred to two judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1983) 85 PLR 471 and Day a Singh and another v. The State of Haryana, (1993-2) 104 PLR 655. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed this submission and has supported the award of the District Judge in this regard. We find that the District Judge is right in holding that the said formula adopted for making evaluation of fruit trees has not been proved on record. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed this submission and has supported the award of the District Judge in this regard. We find that the District Judge is right in holding that the said formula adopted for making evaluation of fruit trees has not been proved on record. However, the Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi (supra), has held that tree growth of land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield, where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes on the basis of prices fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, in such a case timber value or salvage value of the tree growth may be provided. These observations are :— “........So far as the tree-growth is concerned, it is trite proposition that where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes on the basis of prices fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, the tree growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. But this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber-value or the salvage-value of the tree-growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing........." 19. It is true that in the present case, the land was acquired for establishing an agriculture complex which was lateron converted into Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, but still a major portion of it was to be used for building purposes and the law laid down in the above cited judgments of the Supreme Court applies. We are not satisfied that the claimants have been able to make out a case for increase in the compensation for fruit trees as claimed by them. No other point has been agitated on behalf of the claimants in other appeals. 20. The result of the above discussion is that we do not find any merit in the appeals of the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as Cross-appeals/Cross-objections of the claimants and these are dismissed with costs. All the 12 awards of the District Judge challenged by way of these appeals are confirmed. Appeals dismissed. -