JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief and admitted facts leading to the presentation of these appeals are that land comprising Khasra No. 221 and 3 Biswas put of land Khasra No. 250 owned by the appellants in R.F.A. No. 53 of 1994 and 10 Biswas of land forming part of Khasra No. 194 owned by the appellant in R.F.A. No. 52 of 1994 situate in village Khoru, Pargana Chagaon, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for the construction of a Carton Factory. Award for the land so acquired was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 8.4.1989 but the assessment of compensation for the fruit trees standing on the said land was deferred. The supplementary award of compensation for such trees was made on 26.6.1989 on the basis of the assessment Report of the District Horticulture Officer, Shimla. Compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,877/- was awarded in favour of the appellants in RFA No. 53 of 1994 and a sum of Rs. 8,900/- was awarded in favour of the appellant in R.F.A. No. 52 of 1994. Dis-satisfied with the assessment of compensation the appellants preferred applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) for making a reference to the Court on the grounds that the market value of the fruit bearing trees was assessed on the basis of the market value prevalent in the year 1966 without taking into account the increase in the market value by the time Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.10.1987 and that solatium @ 30% and additional compensation @ 12% per annum and interest under Section 34 of the Act was also not awarded. The Land Acquisition Collector made references to the learned District Judge, Shimla. The respondents failed to file replies to the reference petitions and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellants in each case the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 39,692.50 in the case of appellants in R.F.A. No. 53 of 1994 and Rs. The Land Acquisition Collector made references to the learned District Judge, Shimla. The respondents failed to file replies to the reference petitions and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the appellants in each case the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 39,692.50 in the case of appellants in R.F.A. No. 53 of 1994 and Rs. 22,2250/- in case of appellant in R.F.A. No. 52 of 1994 and also awarded solatium 30% per annum on the aforesaid amounts and additional compensation 12% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 27.10.1987 till the date of making of the suplementary award i.e. 26.6.1989. Interest at the prescribed rates was also awarded under Section 28 of the Act on the amount of compensation. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. The inadequacy of the impugned awards have been assailed on the grounds that the learned District Judge failed to enhance the compensation as per the prevalent prices at the time of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in conformity with the increase in the price index and also failed to award interest on solatium and other benefits admissible to the appellants under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the market value of the fruit bearing apple trees was assessed on the basis of the market value as in the year 1966 as per the "Harbans Singh". Formula whereas the trees were acquired in the year 1987 by which time there had been 366% increase in the price index. The learned District Judge, however, increased the value of trees by 150% only whereas the increase should have been in conformity with the increase in the price index i.e. 366%. It was further contended that interest on solatium and additional compensation and interest as permissible has also not been awarded which ought to have been awarded. 6. The learned District Judge, however, increased the value of trees by 150% only whereas the increase should have been in conformity with the increase in the price index i.e. 366%. It was further contended that interest on solatium and additional compensation and interest as permissible has also not been awarded which ought to have been awarded. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the assessment of the market value of the trees in question is not based on actual inspection but is based on the particulars furnished by J.E. A.I.P.I. Ltd. Manga Ram (PW-2) who went to the spot to assess the market value of the trees in question admittedly did not find any plant on the spot. Secondly, the plantation was not as per the standards nor pollinizers were planted in between the apple trees, therefore, the orchard cannot be said to be productive and profitable. Despite this, enhancement of 150% has already been allowed by the learned District Judge and the appellants are not entitled for any further enhancement of the compensation. It was also contended that the appellants have been given due benefits-of the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, therefore, they are not entitled to any further relief under these provisions. 7. Ordinarily to allow increase in the market value of the trees as per the increase in price index is an accepted principle of evaluation of fruit trees. However, to have the full benefit of this principle it has to be shown that the orchard was laid, managed and maintained as per the recommended standards. 8. To be productive the beneficial fruit plants have to be planted at a given distance from each other and in case of apple plants which are not self-pollinizers, pollinizers have to be planted between them. As per the guidelines contained in "Package of Practices For Horticultural Crops" Edited by the specialists in the subject and published by Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan traditional variety of Royal Delicious, i.e. Non-Spur-Seedling root stock which is usually planted in the hilly area being "vigorous" must be planted at a distance of 7.5 meters and 178 plants in a hectare. Thus, about 15 plants of this variety can be planted in one Bigha. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan traditional variety of Royal Delicious, i.e. Non-Spur-Seedling root stock which is usually planted in the hilly area being "vigorous" must be planted at a distance of 7.5 meters and 178 plants in a hectare. Thus, about 15 plants of this variety can be planted in one Bigha. However, keeping in view the gradient of the land this number is usually increased to 20 plants per Bigha. Thus, the maximum 20 Royal Delicious plants can be planted in one Bigha or say one plant per Biswa. Depending on variety, the distance of 3 to 6 meters in case of pear, 3 to 4.5 meters in case of peach and 3 to 6 meters in case of plum and almond between each plant has to be kept. In case of walnut, such distance has to be minimum 8 meters. 9. "Evaluation of Fruit Trees—Basic Principles And Method" by Harbans Singh, which has been relied upon to evaluate the fruit trees in question and is accepted as authoritative on the subject, provides at page 4 that "if the distance between the trees in the orchard is less than the minimum recommended for the kind, the valuation will be reduced corresponding to the reduction in distance." 10. It is not in dispute that in the case of appellant Rajinder Singh, 20 apple trees and 2 pear trees had been planted on an area of 10 Biswas which plantation evidently cannot be said to be scientifically and properly done. Similarly, in the case of other appellants, 41 fruit bearing trees including 33 apple and one walnut trees had been planted in an area of 1-8-0 bighas which is again not as per the approved method of plantation. 11. As per the recommended standard vide "Package of Practices For Horticultural Crops", the ratio of plantation of delicious group (main) and pollinizer must be 67 : 33. In hail prone areas even this ratio has to be increased to 50 : 50. 12. It has been stated by Roshan Deen (PW-4 in both the references) that the apple trees in question were of "Royal Variety", i.e. delicious group. It is not the case of the appellants that they have planted any pollinizer in the acquired area where 53 plants of Royal variety were planted. In other words, there was no polliziner in the acquired area. 13. It is not the case of the appellants that they have planted any pollinizer in the acquired area where 53 plants of Royal variety were planted. In other words, there was no polliziner in the acquired area. 13. Manga Ram (PW-2) who went to the spot to assess the value of the fruit trees in question, has stated that "the plants other than the one which came under acquisition, were of low quality having been diseased". It is also suggestive of the fact that the orchards of the appellants were not well maintained. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the assessment of the value of fruit trees in question as made by the learned District Judge calls for no interference. 15. It was contended for the appellants that interest on solatium and additional compensation has not been allowed in the impugned awards though the appellants have a statutory right for award of interest. 16. The contention seems to be misconceived. It cannot be disputed that interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act is payable on the compensation as may be awarded by the District Judge or the Land Acquisition Collector. The compensation so awarded by them will be the amount worked out as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Act whereunder the awarded compensation will comprise of the market value of the acquired land determined under sub-section (1), the additional compensation worked out under sub-section (1-A) and solatium awarded under sub-section (2). Thus, the expression "compensation" for the purposes of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, will include market value, additional compensation and solatium. Therefore, awarding of interest on the amount of compensation will by itself mean allowing of interest on all the said three components of compensation. 17. The view we have taken hereinabove is fully fortified by the ratio in case Sunder v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) 130, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as under:— "23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. The view we have taken hereinabove is fully fortified by the ratio in case Sunder v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) 130, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as under:— "23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says: "On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested or entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section". The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay "the compensation awarded by him" to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the subsections thereof." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the impugned awards the learned District Judge has clearly and specifically allowed the interest on the amount of "compensation" for the relevant period as per the provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that interest has not been awarded on the additional compensation and the solatium, cannot be sustained. 19. As a result, both these appeals merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Costs on parties. Appeals dismissed.