JUDGMENT S.N. Phukan, J.- By this judgment, we dispose of two appeals, namely, R.F.A. No 273 and R. F. A. No 295 of 1986- The first appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 28-6-1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference No 15-S/4 of 1984 and the second appeal has been filed by the State through Collector against the said award 2 By Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly called as ‘the Act’) on 31-3-1977, which was published in the Gazette on 29-4-1977, the land measuring 2486 Sq. yards and 8 Sq, feet alongwith the building having built up area of 259.4 Sq. yards belonging to the claimant was notified for acquisition for-a public purpose, namely, construction of headquarter of the Deepak Project. The Collector assessed the value of the land at Rs 25 per Sq yard and for the building, the compensation assessed was Rs. 1,95,452 The Collector also awarded a sum of Rs 814.38 paise for fruit trees and Rs. 9,945 for non-fruit trees Being dis-satisfied, the claimant prayed for a reference to the Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Act By the impugned award, the learned Land Acquisition Judge after taking info consideration the entire evidence on record, increased the price of the land to Rs 60 per Sq. yard and for the building, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was fixed as compensation. The learned Land Acquisition Judge dis-allowed the prayer for compensation for fruit as well as non-fruit trees. In addition, solatium at the rate of 30% was also awarded. It was further directed that the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession of the land and building in question and that if the amount is not paid within a period of one year, the claimant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% per annum. Hence, the present two appeals. 3. Heard Mr K.D. Sood alongwith Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant and Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the Collector. 4. The first point for our consideration is the price of the land. It may be stated that the claimant claimed the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 3. Heard Mr K.D. Sood alongwith Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant and Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the Collector. 4. The first point for our consideration is the price of the land. It may be stated that the claimant claimed the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 93 per Sq., yard and for the building more than Rs. 4 lacs. He also claimed Rs. 5,000 for fruit trees and Rs. 15,000 for non-fruit trees. 5. In order to prove the price of the land on behalf of the claimant, various sale deeds were proved. Ex. P-2 is a sale deed executed on 10-5-1976 and by this sale deed, land measuring 255.8 sq. yards was sold for a consideration of Rs. 25,500. Ex. P-14/A is another sale deed dated 29-6-1977 by which the land measuring 290 sq yards was sold for Rs. 29,000. Ex. P-3 is a sale deed dated 18 9-1976 by which 150 sq. yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000. Ex. P-4 is another sale deed dated 17-12-1977 by which land measuring 210 sq. yards was sold for Rs. 20,000. By the sale deed Ex. P-5, land measuring 128 sq. yards 7 sq. feet was sold for Rs. 11.300. Ex. P-6 is another sale deed dated 18-6-1976, by which land measuring 241 sq. yards and 5 sq. feet was sold for Rs. 15,000. Similarly, by Ex. P-7, sale deed dated 14-9 1976, land measuring 390 sq. yards and 5 sq. feet was sold for Rs 20,000. Ex. PW 7/A is the sale deed dated 1-5-1977 by which land measuring 132 sq yards was sold for Rs. 13,000 and by sale deed Ex. PW 11/A dated 3-8-1976, the land measuring 300 Sq. yards was sold for Rs 20,500. It may be stated that no sale deed has been produced on behalf of the Collector. 6. From the above sale deeds, it appears that the land was sold for a price ranging from Rs. 68.13 paise to Rs 100 per sq. yard. The area acquired is a large area compared to the above sale deeds, and most of the sale deeds are from Chhotta Shimla. From the impugned award, we find the land sold by the above sale deeds mostly situated at a distance of 1-1/2 Kms. to 2 Kms. from the acquired land. 68.13 paise to Rs 100 per sq. yard. The area acquired is a large area compared to the above sale deeds, and most of the sale deeds are from Chhotta Shimla. From the impugned award, we find the land sold by the above sale deeds mostly situated at a distance of 1-1/2 Kms. to 2 Kms. from the acquired land. We may state here that in a hilly terrain the above distance makes lot of difference. 7. Reliance has been placed at the Bar on a decision of the apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v, Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652. Their Lordships laid down the factors to be borne in mind in determining the market value of the land. According to their Lordships in applying the above factors common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business has to be undertaken. The plus and minus factors in preparing the balance sheet for this purpose are quoted below : Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. Largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. Frontage on a road, 3. Narrow strip of land with vary small frontage compared to depth. 4. Nearness to developed area. 4. Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. Regular shape. 5. Remoteness from developed locality. 6 Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 6. Some special dis-advantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. 8. In respect of the present land, as stated above, it is a large area compared to the land sold under the above sale deeds. Of course, from the record we find that the acquired land is near the main road and is also a developed land There is already a building on t le land, as stated above. We only find that the approach road was not a pucca road. Subsequently, it was improved by the Deepak Project. From the evidence of CW 1, we find that a sum of Rs 3,96,226.35 paise was spent for improvement of the building and the construction of the pucca road to the building. 9. We only find that the approach road was not a pucca road. Subsequently, it was improved by the Deepak Project. From the evidence of CW 1, we find that a sum of Rs 3,96,226.35 paise was spent for improvement of the building and the construction of the pucca road to the building. 9. After considering all the aspects of th8 matter including the evidence on record and sale deeds, we are of the opinion that the valuation fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge i.e. Rs 60 per Sq. yard cannot be said to be lower than the market rate for such large area of the land. Though it has been submitted that the price of land in Shimla town is going up, in reply it has been urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that nothing has been proved to show this rise in price of land, more particularly, between the year 1976 to 1978. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, rise in price of land was after 1980 and he has urged that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has awarded the amount as per sale deeds exhibited on behalf of the claimant which lands are in thickly populated area, which is not so in the case of the acquired land and building. We have considered the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General and we are of the opinion that the price fixed for the land by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is just and proper. 10. The next question is compensation for the building. The claimant produced two Experts, namely, Mr B.K. Sahasarbudhe, Senior Architect (PW 4) and he has also proved the report, According to this witness, the valuation of the built up portion of the building is Rs 6,40,000 including water supply, sanitation installation, retaining wall and electricity installation etc. He has stated that his value is based on the PWD schedule of the State Government for the year 1968 and he has given a premium of 135% for the year 1977. The next Expert is Mr. S.P. Kapoor, retired Superintending Engineer (PW 13). He has also proved the report Ex. PW 13/A and he valued the building at Rs 5,86,704. It may be stated that on behalf of the Collector, Mr. Dilbag Singh. The next Expert is Mr. S.P. Kapoor, retired Superintending Engineer (PW 13). He has also proved the report Ex. PW 13/A and he valued the building at Rs 5,86,704. It may be stated that on behalf of the Collector, Mr. Dilbag Singh. Superintending Engineer (RW 6) was examined to prove the valuation of the acquired building According to this witness, the valuation of the building was Rs. 1,94,622 and his report is marked as Ex. RW 6/A, He has stated that the estimate of the building was based on the P. W. D. schedule for the year 1968. He has not given any premium over the above schedule, though valuation was made for the year 1977, Therefore, his report is not acceptable as it is a fact that tire price of materials for buildings have gone up. The claimant, who deposed before the learned Land Acquisition Judge stated that he spent Rs, 2,60,000 only for the construction of the building, in addition to new construction, which he added to the building. We may state here that according to Mr. Kapoor (PW 13) his valuation is based on Schedule of rates of the PWD for the year 1968 and he has given a premium of 125%. 11. We find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge fixed the amount of compensation for the building only by guess work. When two Experts have given the report on the basis of assessment with reasons, the Lamed Land Acquisition Judge ought to have accepted the report and valued , the building accordingly. Of course, he has rightly rejected the report or PW 6, as it was based on Schedule rates of PWD for the year 1968. We have perused the report of Mr. Kapoor and we find that he has given sufficient reasons for not agreeing with the report of RW 6. We may state here that PW 4 is an Architect and in our opinion, the proper person to assess the valuation of the building should be an Engineer Accordingly, we accept the report of Mr. S. P. Kapoor and in our opinion, the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs, 5,86,704 for the building. 12. We may state here that PW 4 is an Architect and in our opinion, the proper person to assess the valuation of the building should be an Engineer Accordingly, we accept the report of Mr. S. P. Kapoor and in our opinion, the claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs, 5,86,704 for the building. 12. Regarding trees, we find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge relying on the definition of the land rejected the claim and in doing so, he has also placed reliance on decisions of Patna High Court as well as apex Court. The second clause of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act is clear, which inter alia provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired, the Court shall take into consideration the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collectors taking possession thereof. Therefore, under this clause, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as awarded by the Collector for the fruit trees and non-fruit trees. 13. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the apex Court in Chaturbhuj Pande and others v. Collector, Raigarh, AIR 1969 SC 255. Para 8 of the judgment is relevant and is quoted below : "The High Court in our opinion was wrong in dis-allowing the statutory allowance permitted by section 23 (2) over the value of the trees The High Court erred in thinking that the value of the trees falls under the second clause of section 23 (1). The first clause of section 23 provides for determining the market value of the land acquired. Section 3 (a) prescribes that the expression land includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or .permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Therefore, the trees that were standing on the land were a component part of the land acquired. The High Court failed to notice that what was acquired are not the trees but the land as such. The value of the trees was ascertained only for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land. Therefore, the trees that were standing on the land were a component part of the land acquired. The High Court failed to notice that what was acquired are not the trees but the land as such. The value of the trees was ascertained only for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land. On the value of the land as determined, the court was bound to allow the 15 per cent allowance provided by section 23 (2) of the Act." 14. From the above ratio, it is clear that the value of trees has to be determined while assessing the value of the land and solatium has to be paid after ascertaining the value of the laud including the trees thereon, as per section 23 (2) of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the finding of the learned Land Acquisition Judge and hold that the claimant shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,759.38 paise for trees as awarded by the Collector. This price shall be included in the price of land and solatium shall be paid on this sum also. 15. Relying on the decision of the apex Court in Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has awarded solatium at the rate of 30%. The apex Court in Union of India and others v. Filip Tiago Be Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, AIR 1990 SC 981, also considered the above decision and held that the benefit of higher solatium i.e. 30% as per amendment made in the Act in the year 1984 is also available in case award of compensation is made after 24-9-1984. 16. In Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L. Rs, etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 ; Bhag Singhs case (supra) was over-ruled and held that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court:, in which the benefit of the enhanced solatium is to be given, is confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30th April, 1982 (date of introduction of the amending bill) and 24th September, 1984 (date of passing of the amending bill). 17. In the case in band, the award of the Court is, dated 28 6-1986 i.e. after coming into force of the Amending Act. 17. In the case in band, the award of the Court is, dated 28 6-1986 i.e. after coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in Filip Tiago De Gamas case (supra), we hold that the solatium of 30% was rightly awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. 18 The appeal by the claimant, namely, R.F.A. No. 273 of 1986 is allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeal filed by the State, namely, R.F.A. No. 295 of 1986 is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.