JUDGMENT R. L Khurana, J.-This regular first appeal has been directed against the award dated 29-1-1.990 of the learned Additional District Judge Mandi made in Land Reference Case No. 30 of 1998. 2 Land measuring 0-2-4 bigha belonging to the respondents, herein-after referred to as the claimants situated in Mauza Aut Tchsil Sadar District Mandi, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 21 in pursuance of a notification published on 1-12-1981, under section 4 (f) of the Act. The acquired land belonging to the claimants was of the category of “Ghar-mumkin Abadi" and to shop premises were located there in. The Collector, Land Acquisition, vide his Award 56 dated 2o-3-1983 awarded compensation to the claimants for their 6land by assessing the market value thereof at Rs. 15,000 per bigha A sum of Rs. 24,864 was awarded as compensation for the shop premises existing in the acquired land, a addition the claimants were- granted solatium at the rate of 15% of the compensation as assessed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, 3. The learned Acquisition District Judge, on a reference having been made to him under section 18 of the Act, allowed compensation to the claimants as under :— (a) Land Rs. 4,000 (b) Buildings Rs. 1,32,534 (c) Loss of business Rs. 18,000 In addition to the above, the claimants were allowed solatium at the rate of 30% and all other benefits admissible under the Act Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum was also allowed. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned award of the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the same is based on mere conjectures and surmises. It has been contended that once the market value of the acquired land was assessed as "Ghair Mumkin Abadi" the buildings standing therein could not have been separately assessed and compensation awarded therefor. It has further been contended that the learned Court below has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 18,000 under the head loss of business. 5. The learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has supported the impugned award for the reasons and on the grounds enumerated therein. It has further been contended that the learned Court below has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 18,000 under the head loss of business. 5. The learned Counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has supported the impugned award for the reasons and on the grounds enumerated therein. 6 Admittedly, the acquired land belonging the claimants for "Ghair Mumkin Abadi". There were two shops therein. The Collector, Land Acquisition, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,650 for the land (calculated at the market value of Rs. 15,000 per bigha) and Rs. 24,864 for the buildings Such amount was enhanced to Rs. 4,000 for the land and Rs 1,32,934 for the buildings by the learned Court below. Thus, while determining the amount of compensation, land and the buildings have been separately assessed and compensation awarded therefor. 7. In Rattan Kumar Tandon and others v. State of U P.9 (1997) 2 SCC 161, the apex Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation. It was held ;— "It is well settled law that when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of building and the land. They are entitled to compensation on either of the two methods but not both. If 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 be again separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris.” The apex Court refused to interfere with the market value assessed for the land and building as assessed by the High Court in the absence of appeal by the State 8. In the present case, as stated above, both the Collector, Land Acquisition as well as the learned Additional District Judge has assessed the value of the building and land separately Such valuation in terms of the ratio laid down by the apex Court is bad and cannot be sustained 9 Since the land as well as the buildings situated therein have been notified for acquisition under section 4(1) of the Act, the building has to be valued either on the basis of the rent received therefor with a suitable multiplier or on the basis of the cost. 10. 10. No evidence is available on the record with regard to the rent being received by the claimants in respect of such buildings In fact, the evidence goes to show that major portion of the buildings was under self occupation of the claimants themselves. Therefore, value of the buildings cannot be assessed by applying the multiplier method The same will have to be valued on the basis of the case of construction as on the relevant date, 11. The claimants have led evidence to show that the cost of the buildings on the relevant date was Rs 1,32.534. This value was assessed by PW 3, Shri T.C. Tandon, a retired Superintending Engineer of the H P P. W D PW3 had inspected the buildings on 20 6-1983 His estimates are Ex PB/i to PB/5 and Ex PC/2 to PC/6 Vide Ex PB/1 to PB/5, the building in khasra No. 116/1 was assessed at Rs 53 246 while the building in Khasra No. 134 Vide EK PC/2 to PC/6 was assessed at Rs.79;2,88 E.X PB/1 and PC/6 are the site-Plans of the buildings prepared by PW 3 snowing the details of the construction. 12 In the rebuttal, the evidence led by the appellants comprises of the statement of DW 1, Shri N R Verma, an Assistant Engineer of the H P. P. W. D.. Ex D-l is the copy of the extract prepared in respect of the valuation of various buildings subject-matter of acquisition. A perusal of the same shows that the two buildings of the claimants were valued at Rs 24,864. Though to this value, DW 1 added 30% contingencies charges 1.75% W. C Charges and 9% agency charges, the Collector while allowing compensation did not take note of the said additions and assessed the value of the two buildings at Rs. 24,864 No details of the valuation conducted by DW 1 are forthcoming. Neither any site-plan appears to have been prepared by DW 1 at the time of spot inspection by him Nothing has come on the record with regard to the extent and quality of construction found by DW 1. 13 In the absence of relevant material, the learned District Judge has rightly discarded Ex. Neither any site-plan appears to have been prepared by DW 1 at the time of spot inspection by him Nothing has come on the record with regard to the extent and quality of construction found by DW 1. 13 In the absence of relevant material, the learned District Judge has rightly discarded Ex. D-l from consideration, while assessing the value of the buildings The evidence led by the claimants with regard to he value of the buildings has remained unrebutted and as such has been rightly relied upon by the learned Court below in fixing the market value if the building at Rs 1,32,534, Such assessment does not call for and interference in this appeal. 14 Since the buildings have been assessed in accordance with their value, the land could not have been assessed separately and condensation awarded therefore. To this extent, the award of the learned Additional District Judge, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the land is bad and liable be to set aside, 15. The learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation to the extent of Rs 18,000 in favour of claimant Durginder Pal toward. loss of business According to the claimants, a hotel (DHABA) under the name and style of "Markanda Bhojnalaya" was being run in one of the shops by the claimant Durginder Pal He was earning about Rs 80 to Rs 100 per day there from. As a result of the acquisition, there has been loss of business, 16. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that a hotel was being run by claimant Durgiader Pal and that he was earning Rs. 50 per day. Applying one years multiplier, compensation for the loss of business was assessed at Rs 18,000. 17. Be it stated that while no compensation under this head was awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition, in favour of the present claimants, such compensation was awarded by him to 27 other persons, whose business came to be uprooted due to acquisition. Six months loss of earnings were awarded as compensation to such persons. 18, DW Shri N. R Verma, has categorically admitted that a hotel was being run in one of the shops in the acquired buildings. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by the appellants to the evidence of the claimants with regard to the daily income from the business 19. 18, DW Shri N. R Verma, has categorically admitted that a hotel was being run in one of the shops in the acquired buildings. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by the appellants to the evidence of the claimants with regard to the daily income from the business 19. The learned Additional District Judge has assessed the daily income of the claimant Durginder Pal at Rs 50 by taking a very reasonable view of the matter. The multiplier applied and the compensation assessed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be interfered with. 20. As a result, the present appeal is partly allowed The impugned award of the learned Additional District Judge is modified. The claimants shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired buildings, inclusive of value of land at Rs 1,32,53. Claimant Durginder Pal shall also entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,000 towards loss of business. The claimants shall further be entitled to :-— (i) Solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount. (ii) Additional compensation under section 23 (I-A) at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of the notification under section 4 (!) of the Act till the date of the award of the Collector, Land Acquisition, or the date of taking possession of the acquired properties, whichever is earlier, (iii) Interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount with ?fleet from the date of taking possession of the acquired property for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount. 21 It may be clarified (hat no solatium and additional amount under section 23 (2-A) of the Act shall be payable in respect of the a nount of compensation of Rs. 18 000 awarded under th; head loss of business. 22 It may further be clarified that the amounts awarded under sections 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) of the Act as at (i) and (ii) above are not part of the component of compensation awarded under section 23 (1! of the Act, therefore, no interest, as detailed at (iii) above, would be payable in no far as these amounts are concerned. 23 The entire amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge stands paid to the claimants against security and otherwise. of the Act, therefore, no interest, as detailed at (iii) above, would be payable in no far as these amounts are concerned. 23 The entire amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge stands paid to the claimants against security and otherwise. The claimants shall repay/deposit back the excess amount, if any, received by them with the learned Court below, within a period of three months from today. No orders as to cost. Appeal partly allowed. -