Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 11.12.1987 (Award signed on 4.1.1988) passed by the Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, by which he raised the rate of compensation of the acquired lands from Rs. 16, 900.00 per acre to Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) and also awarded 15% interest over the amount as also interest(r) 6% per annum from the date of the communication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) till the date of taking possession or making award by the Collector, whichever is earlier. 2. The relevant facts concerning this appeal are that by notification No. D.L.A. 32/77-1713R dated 1.6.1977 39 Dec. of land of plot No. 663, under khata No. 22, of village Uchari Mohall Garhwa town, district Palamau was acquired by the Collector, Palamau, for agricultural marketing yard at Garhwa. The Collector awarded compensation in L.A. Case No. 161 /74 of 1979 in respect of the aforesaid lands, according to which the market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 16, 900.00 per acre a d besides that a sum of Rs. 9,360, 00 paise was awarded on account of the construction of house up to plinth level area found over the acquired lands and a sum of Rs. 4,875.00 was awarded on account of a well, which was in existence over the land; besides that, additional compensation and interest @ 6% were also awarded and, thus, a total sum of Rs. 24, 309.15 paise was awarded as compensation to the claimant-appellant. On objection being raised, the matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Daltonganj, under Sec. 18 of the Act. The learned Land Acquisition Judge, on such reference, determined the market price of the land at Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) per Decimal and awarded additional compensation @ Rs 15% over the price of the land together with interest(r) 6% per annum from the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession or making award whichever is earlier. 1,000 (One thousand) per Decimal and awarded additional compensation @ Rs 15% over the price of the land together with interest(r) 6% per annum from the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession or making award whichever is earlier. Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the impugned Judgment and award the present appeal has been tiled on the ground that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not determined the price at the market value of the acquired lands in accordance with law and has also omitted to give compensation for the construction which admittedly existed unit. Therefore, earned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is illegal, which is liable to be set aside and the price of the acquired lands deserves to be determined in accordance with law and the appellant should also be compensated for the construction and should be given solatium and interest as per the law. 3. The point which arises for my consideration in this appeal is as to whether the award given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is correct and can be legally sustained or not? 4. In course of argument, the earned Counsel rightly conceded that he does not challenge the market price of the acquired land which has been determined by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. It appears that in another reference Case No. 67/150 of 1979 in the same vicinity the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 1,000.00 per Dec. on the basis of the sale-deed and, accordingly, in the instant case also, the same rate at Rs. 1, 000.00 per Dec. was made applicable while determining the market value of the acquired lands. The market value determined by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is supported by the sale chart Ext. B, which shows that in serial No. 23, 3 Dec. of land of plot No. 525 has been sold by sale-deed dated 9.7.1977 @ Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) per acre. As such, the learned Land Acquisition Judge appears to have rightly determined the market value of the acquired land of the instant case @ Rs. 1,000.00 per Dec. B, which shows that in serial No. 23, 3 Dec. of land of plot No. 525 has been sold by sale-deed dated 9.7.1977 @ Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) per acre. As such, the learned Land Acquisition Judge appears to have rightly determined the market value of the acquired land of the instant case @ Rs. 1,000.00 per Dec. In such view of the matter as also considering the submission of the earned Counsel appearing for the appellant, who has fairly conceded as regards the market value of the acquired lands determined by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, I hold that the order passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge regarding the market value of the acquired Land which has been determined @ Rs. 1,000.00 per Dec. does not require any interference and his finding to that effect is upheld. 5. The learned Counsel made grievance that the Land Acquisition Judge has not given any compensation for the construction of house as also the well, although the Collector had given compensation for the same inasmuch as, the Collector gave award of Rs. 9,360/ for the construction of the house and a sum of Rs. 4,875.00 for the construction of the well. It further appears from the impugned order that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has committed a grave illegality in not awarding any compensation on the aforesaid two counts, even though, the Collector had given compensation in respect of the aforesaid two items. The earned Counsel has submitted before me that the appellant had actually incurred a sum of Rs. 35,954.00 over the construction of house which was built up to the plinth level and in support thereof the claimant-appellant had filed the sanctioned plan (Ext. 2) along with the cost of construction incurred by the appellant in respect of his house and well (Ext. 3). It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant is entitled to get the sum of Rs. 35, 954.00 on account of construction of house up to the plinth level and a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 on account of construction of well. 6. In order to substantiate the claim regarding the cost of construction incurred by the claimant-appellant ever the house and well no technical expert has been examined and the oral evidence adduced by the applicant is so vague that no definite conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of oral evidence. 10,000.00 on account of construction of well. 6. In order to substantiate the claim regarding the cost of construction incurred by the claimant-appellant ever the house and well no technical expert has been examined and the oral evidence adduced by the applicant is so vague that no definite conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of oral evidence. The claimant-appellant has also failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to show that the claimant had actually incurred the amount as claimed by him over the aforesaid constructions. The witnesses examined by the claimant-appellant have also failed to give the detail particulars regarding the actual cost incurred over the construction of house and well so as to bring home the claim which has been made by the claimant-appellant. Mere saying that the claimant had incurred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) over the construction of the house and well is not suffice to prove the claim that actually the claimant had spent that amount over the construction. The claimant was bound to prove the fact regarding the cost incurred over the construction of house and well by solid and genuine evidence which he had failed to do. 7. As against this, it appears from the record that the Executive Engineer of P.W. D. was deputed to revaluate the cost of construction over unfinished house and well and the Executive Engineer who is supposed to be a technical expert has assessed the cost of construction of the un finished house at Rs. 9,360.00 and cost of construction of well was. as sessed at Rs. 4,875.00 There does not appear any reason to disbelieve or differ with the assessment made by the Executive Engineer. It appears that the Collector while awarding the compensation has also allowed the compensation in respect of the construction found over the land in question as per the report of the Executive Engineer. I am, therefore, of the view that the assessment made by the Executive Engineer in respect of the construction of house and well found over the acquired lands should be accepted and the claimant-appellant should get compensation accordingly. I further find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not awarded the additional compensation, interest and solatium as per the statutory provisions, in view of the amended Act, although the Land Acquisition Act had been amended in the year 1984. 8. I further find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not awarded the additional compensation, interest and solatium as per the statutory provisions, in view of the amended Act, although the Land Acquisition Act had been amended in the year 1984. 8. In view of the decision Bhag Singh and others v. Union of Territory of Chandigarh the provisions of the amended Act shall be applicable in the instant case also and the claimant-appellant shall get all the benefits as provided under the amended Act. 9. In view of the discussion made above and after considering the entire materials on record, I find and hold that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get compensation in respect of 39 Dec. of land acquired in this case @ Rs 1,000 per Dec. and he is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 9,360.00 for the construction of the unfinished house and a sum of Rs. 4,875.00 on account of the construction of well which existed on the land in question; besides that, the appellant is also entitled to get additional compensation @ 12% per annum on the total amount of compensation for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act till the date of award or taking over the possession of the land whichever is earlier under Sec. 23 (1A) of the Act, besides that the appellant is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of taking possession of the acquired lands till the amount of compensation is paid or deposited by the Collector, in the case where the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession and if the amount of compensation or any part thereof has not been paid or deposited within a period of one year or from the date on which possession is taken, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the expiry of one year over the amount of compensation or part there of which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. The appellant shall also be entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30% on the value of the lands determined above. The appellant shall also be entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30% on the value of the lands determined above. The appellant shall further be entitled to get interest pendentelite at the rate of 12% per annum over the entire amounts till the date of its realisation. 10. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed in part on contest in terms of modification as held above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.