JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. We propose to take up both these appeals together as they arise out of the same judgment/award passed by Shri R. L. Sharma, Additional District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, H.P. By means of impugned award in case No. 22-S/4 of l985 dated 25-6-1986, while answering the reference filed by Harminder Kumar Modi and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants') under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 16,44,120 as against Rs 6,01,574,80, awarded by LA C Neither claimants are satisfied with this award of the reference court nor the Respondents hereinafter referred to as the State is satisfied with the same As according to the claimants, the impugned award is inadequate and was liable to be enhanced, whereas on the other hand, according to the State, the impugned award is excessive and is liable to be reduced R. F. A. No. 6S/87 is at the instance of the State and R.F.A. No. 17/87 is at the instance of the claimants. It is necessary to refer to a few facts which have got material bearing in this case. 2. Process was initiated for acquisition of 1 and on a part whereof structures were standing. Total area of the land that was sought to be acquired was 5529 sq. metres. Out of this total area 4762 sq. metres was situated in mauza Thodo Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, whereas the remaining area of 767 sq. metres was situate in mauza Saproon, Tehsil and Dislrict, Solan. The aforesaid property together with structures standing thereon was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose as well as at the public expenses by the State of H P Public purpose was construction of Judicial complex at Solan. In these circumstances, Notification No. Home-II (G) 1-4/79 II, dated 13th November, 1982 was issued. As it is revealed from the record, the claimants did not file any objections and only one tenant, namely, Shri Mohan Lal objected to the acquisition. In these circumstances, Notification No. Home-II (G) 1-4/79 II, dated 13th November, 1982 was issued. As it is revealed from the record, the claimants did not file any objections and only one tenant, namely, Shri Mohan Lal objected to the acquisition. Land Acquisition Collector (SDM), Solan, vide its letter dated 19-S-1983 submitted its report for the issuance of notification under Section 6 and 7 of the Act, the same was issued vide Notification No Home II (G 1-4/79, dated 17th February, 1983 After the issuance of this notification, Land Acquisition Collector got the demarcation carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the act. Thereafter, notices under Section 9 of the act were issued to the persons interested calling upon them to file their objections and claims to compensation, if any, as well as to the measurements. Claimants No. 1, Harminder Kumar Modi appeared and appears to have made a claim of 35 00 lacs for the entire land/structures as according to him, the claimants had spent huge amount on the construction of buildings, plantation of fruit trees as well as carrying out other improvements Thereafter, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the total sum of Rs. 6,95,685, 3. It may be appropriate to mention that as per statement under Section 18 of the Act that was required to be submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector while forwarding the reference application under Section 18 of the act, date of taking over of the possession was 30-11-1983. Further the aforesaid sum of compensation included the compensation in respect of land at the rate of 52 sq metre, compensation in respect of houses alongwith electricity and fittings, for fruit trees and non-fruit trees besides solatium at the rate of 15%. Claimants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, as such, by means of their reference application, they claimed that the matter be forwarded to the Court of District Judge, Solan for determination of compensation under Section 18 and 30 After receipt of reference, notices were issued to the parties. State contested and resisted the claim of the claimants before the reference court as according to it, compensation awarded was adequate and thus, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. Replication was filed on behalf of the claimants In the aforesaid background, parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. State contested and resisted the claim of the claimants before the reference court as according to it, compensation awarded was adequate and thus, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. Replication was filed on behalf of the claimants In the aforesaid background, parties went to trial on the following issues: 1. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector for the property acquired was inadequate, if so what was the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time? 2. Relief. Reference court after examination of the whole matter, enhanced the compensation as aforesaid and, thus, ordered payment of Rs. 10,42,515.20 over and above what had been already awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was further ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation as also interest thereon at the rate of 9% PA from the date of taking possession till the enhanced compensation is deposited in the court However, parties were left to bear their own costs. It is this award of the reference court below which is questioned by both the parties as detailed hereinabove in both these appeals. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General in support of the State's appeal has submitted that the claimants are not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. According to her, they are entitled to compensation in either of the two methods, but not by both. If the building is assessed then the measure to assessment is to be based on either rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. As according to her, in the present case, land was separately valued The building could not have been separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. On this basis, it was urged by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the compensation awarded by the reference court was liable to be reduced and she prayed accordingly. This line of argument was also pressed into service in the claimants appeal where they asked for enhancement of compensation. 5. On this basis, it was urged by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the compensation awarded by the reference court was liable to be reduced and she prayed accordingly. This line of argument was also pressed into service in the claimants appeal where they asked for enhancement of compensation. 5. The evidence led by the parties consists of PW 1 Harminder Kumar Modi and PW-2 Shri H. K. L. Talwar, a qualified Architect, who has submitted the valuation report vide exhibit PW-2/A, site plan, exhibit PW-2/B building plans, exhibits PW-2/C and D, analysis, and detailed dstimates of the three buildings standing on the portion of the land in question, were submitted by PW 2 vide exhibit PW 2/E and detailed estimates of the said three buildings were placed on record vide exhibits PW-2/G and PW-2/H respectively. Similarly detailed specifications of material used in the buildings were given by him in exhibit PW-2/J and according to him he had taken the age of the building to be 35 years and after allowing depreciation, assessed the value at Rs. 9,84,222. As against this, expert evidence of the claimants, State had examined Shri C. L. Kapoor, Executive Engineer, National Highway, Solan, who has submitted his evaluation estimate for buildings, retaining walls as well as the railings vide exhibit R-1, which according to him also contain extracts of costs of different buildings, retaining walls and the detailed estimate of such building and cost was worked out by him on H P Schedule of Rates, 1979 by adding prevalent cost index at that time. He had prepared estimate of buildings, giving measurements of all the three buildings, servant quarters etc. These documents were placed on record as exhibits R-2 to R-34. So far as the statement of PW-1 Harminder Kumar Modi is concerned, he has tried to show the location of the property which is on the Kalka-Shimla National Highway and its having potential for development. This witness claimed Rs. 15 to 20 lacs for the building portion and Rs. 20.00 lacs for the land besides, Rs. 10,000 for the fruit trees standing on the land in question. He has gone on record to say that 2-3 of Delhi party offered them rupees 600 per sq metre for this property, but the claimants declined the offer. This witness claimed Rs. 15 to 20 lacs for the building portion and Rs. 20.00 lacs for the land besides, Rs. 10,000 for the fruit trees standing on the land in question. He has gone on record to say that 2-3 of Delhi party offered them rupees 600 per sq metre for this property, but the claimants declined the offer. Besides the aforesaid oral evidence, claimants have placed on record copies of different awards passed by the District Judge, Solan, vide exhibits PA to PG on different dates In addition to this, copies of sale deed exhibit PH, PJ to PP were filed on behalf of the claimants On the other hand. State placed reliance on copies of sale deed exhibit R-35 to R-39 besides estimates etc. prepared by RW-1 vide exhibits R-1 to R-34. 6. From the record, it is further clear that the Land Acquisition Collector himself has assessed the compensation of the land, buildings standing thereon, trees both fruit and non-fruit by taking them as separate items and for each item, separate compensation has been awarded. In fact, government itself made the offer on such basis and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector can in no case be reduced in view of the bar of Section 25 under the Act. Thus, the question that needs to be considered is whether the Stale-Appellant can derive some benefit or not in view of the observations made in (1997) 2 SCC 161, Rattan Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. State of U.P., which are to the following effect: The next question is as to what would be the value of the building to which the Appellants are entitled to? It is well settled law that when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. They are entitled to compensation on either of the two methods but not both. If the building is assessed, it is settled law that the measure of assessment be based on either the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. In this case, since the land is separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. In this case, since the land is separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. However, since State has not come in appeal, we need not go into the legality of the award of the Additional District Judge and of the High Court in that behalf. It would, therefore be unnecessary to go into that question and we confirm of the compensation in respect of building at Rs. 8,33,000 and odd. This precedent was pressed into service by the learned Deputy Advocate General in support of the appeal filed by the State. 7. In the context of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the State it may be appropriate to point out that no such ground had been raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the State which shows that the mode of assessing compensation by taking both land as well as building separately assessed was not considered to be contrary to law by the State itself. In any event in view of the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as by the reference court cannot be upheld. But as pointed out above, this argument has been pressed into service for the first time during the pendency of the appeal. Needless to point out that the question relating to assessment of compensation in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not purely a question of law, but it depends upon the evidence to be led by the parties. 8. After having made an offer in the shape of the award of the Laud Acquisition Collector and thereafter having not raised specific ground of appeal to that extent. State cannot be permitted to advance its case on the basis of acts of the Land Acquisition Collector in assessing the market value of the property under acquisition Infact when the case of both the parties is examined on the materials on record, it is manifestly clear that they had taken the method of assessing separately which was purely contrary to the mandate of the Apex Court. This Court would not have hesitated to determine the compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court However, there is no evidence produced by the parties so as to assess the compensation as per mandate of the Apex Court in the case of Rattan Kumar Tondon and Ors. (supra). 9. Faced with the aforesaid situation, this Court has no option, but for ordering remand of the case, so as to enable the parties to lead proper evidence in support of their respective claims as also by examining such other evidence so that both of them are in a position to substantiate their respective claims. In taking this view, a reference can usefully be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court JT 1997 (4) SC (555) U.P., State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh v. State of U.P. and Ors. In this case, copies of sale deeds were filed in support of claim of higher compensation, but were not substantiated by examination of either vendee or vendor. Thus it was held that the evidence was not legally admissible and, therefore, the approach of either the reference court or the High Court was not correct and in those circumstances, the matter was ordered to be remanded to reference court to allow the parties to produce evidence afresh while allowing appeal. Identical view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in R.F.A. No. 102/90, State of H.P. v. Mohi Ram and Anr. decided on 4th April, 1997. In the present case, when a reference is made to exhibit PA to PP, claimants have not led any evidence so as to show the proximity etc. of the property under acquisition vis-a-vis the lands which were subject matter of awards exhibits PA to PO as well as by examining either the vendee or vendor in respect of sale deeds exhibits PH to PP Similar is the position on the part of the State, as it has led no evidence by examining either the vendee or the vendor of the sale deeds exhibits R-35 to R-39. That being so, there is no other escape but for ordering remand of the case to the reference court for allowing the claimants to lead evidence and it is ordered accordingly. That being so, there is no other escape but for ordering remand of the case to the reference court for allowing the claimants to lead evidence and it is ordered accordingly. Consequeetly, both these appeals are allowed and the impugned award passed by the reference court in land reference case No 22-S/4 of 1985, dated 25-6-1986 titled as Harminder Kumar Modi v. State of H.P. and Anr. is set-aside. Reference court is directed to decide the reference filed by the claimants in accordance with the directions contained here in this judgment as well as the command of the Apex Court in the case of Rattan Kumar Tondon and Ors. supra Parties are directed to appear in the court of District Judge on 2nd June, 1997, who shall make endeavour to dispose of this case with utmost expedition and in no case liter than 31st December, 1997. Both the parties would be entitled to the refund of the court fees in accordance with the provision of Section 13 of the H.P. Court Fees Act. No costs.