Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official gazette on July 8, 1977. Land and super structures standing thereupon were intended to be acquired. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on April 10, 1978 acquiring the aforesaid property. A separate award with regard to the agricultural lands and the lands underneath the construction and the abadi land was given. The said award is no more under challenge in the present appeal. The claim in the present appeal is only with regard to the value of the super structure. 2. Since the construction of the houses and super structures did not fall under any standard type of construction and as such the PWD schedule of rates could not be made applicable for evaluating the aforesaid structures. The Land Acquisition Collector appointed Shri B.L. Chhabra, Engineer in the Military Estate Office, Pathankot to evaluate the aforesaid structures. Shri Chhabra carried out the measurements of all the buildings of the village including the structures involved in acquisition proceedings and classified those structures in different categories. The inventory was prepared. The said inventory was submitted to PWD authorities with the request that they should find out per square foot cost price of each category. Thereafter the PWD authorities assessed tjie valuation with the help of cost of construction so worked out by Shri B.L. Chhabra. The said valuation assessed by PWD authorities was accepted by the Land Acquisition Collector. On that basis, the compensation was assessed. 3. The claimants felt dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and requested for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act. 4. According to the claimants, the Land Acquisition Collector, while determining the amount of compensation for the structures had not taken into consideration the rising prices and other relevant material and the compensation was assessed merely on the basis of the report of the Military Estate Office. A grievance was made by the claimants that the Military Estate Office was in fact acquiring department and, therefore, the valuation assessed by the said department could not be taken to be a fair valuation of the market value of the acquired structures. They claimed Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation for their acquired house. 5. A grievance was made by the claimants that the Military Estate Office was in fact acquiring department and, therefore, the valuation assessed by the said department could not be taken to be a fair valuation of the market value of the acquired structures. They claimed Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation for their acquired house. 5. The respondents contested the demand of the claimants and maintained that the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector was on the basis of rates supplied by the PWD authorities and, therefore, the said compensation was absolutely just and proper and being a fair compensation and no further enhancement was required. 6. Before the learned District Judge both the parties led evidence. The claimants examined Jai Kishan, AW1 who deposed that after visiting the spot and doing the measurements of the acquired house, a site plan Ex.A1 had been prepared. B.D.Gupta appeared as AW2. He was a retired Sub Divisional Engineer, Pathankot. On the basis of site plan Ex.A1 and after verifying its correctness at the spot, he prepared the estimates of the acquired property. The estimates were submitted vide report Ex.A2. He deposed that he had prepared the aforesaid report as per the MES standard schedule of rates for the year 1975. The amount so worked out was enhanced by 15% in order to make it upto date for July, 1977. According to Shri Gupta the value of the acquired house on the relevant date was Rs. 44,600/-. 7. In contrast to the aforesaid evidence, the respondents produced B.L.Chhabra as RW2. He deposed that during the acquisition proceedings he had remained associated with the Land Acquisition Collector. The whole of the abadi of village Kalarwan was acquired. He visited the village and took the measurements of various houses including the acquired land and as the structure did not fall under any standard type of construction, their inventory was prepared classifying different structures into different classes and the inventory was submitted to Shri K.L.Jetli, Sub Divisional Engineer, RW1 who had deposed that he had worked out the reports submitted by B.L.Chhabra and thereafter returned the papers by appending thereto the prices worked out in accordance with the common schedule of rates of Punjab PWD department and the sanction premium for bringing their rates upto date. As per RW1, the estimate prepared by Shri Chhabra was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and in accordance with the said estimate the compensation of Rs. 28,263.75 was granted. 8. The learned District Judge after noticing the aforesaid evidence came to the conclusion that the estimates submitted by the two experts were at variance. It was noticed by the learned District Judge that the acquired house consisted by three rooms and one verandah. It was submitted that the acquired house was like other structures in the village. The learned District Judge after perusal of the two reports submitted by the two respective experts found that it was not proper to accept anyone of the two reports. 9. The claimants had also produced one Pritam Singh AW3. The aforesaid Pritam Singh deposed that during 1976 he resided in the acquirer house on payment of Rs. 375/- as a monthly rent. He remained as tenant of the claimants for 14 to 15 months. This witness was employed in a construction company which was executing some work near the village. Since no other evidence was available to assess the market value and nothing was shown by the respondents that the evidence of Pritam Singh was in any manner not believable, therefore, the learned District Judge accepted the statement -of the aforesaid Pritam Singh, AW3. Thereafter the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the aforesaid rent of Rs. 375/- per month included the electric charges of Rs. 15/- per month and, therefore, the actual monthly rent of the property in dispute came out to be Rs. 360/- per month. Thus, the annual rental value of the acquired house was assessed at Rs. 4,320/-. The multiplier of 10 was applied. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 43,200/- which was rounded of at Rs. 43,000/-. The learned District Judge further noticed that claimant Hazara Singh had stated on oath that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was spent on the construction of the acquired house. The valuation worked out by R.D. Gupta also showed that valuation was Rs. 44,600/-. Accordingly, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the said value of Rs. 43,000/- was quite close to the valuation worked out by Shri B.D. Gupta. Accordingly, the aforesaid market value of Rs. 43,000/- was accepted as the market value of the acquired house. The valuation worked out by R.D. Gupta also showed that valuation was Rs. 44,600/-. Accordingly, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the said value of Rs. 43,000/- was quite close to the valuation worked out by Shri B.D. Gupta. Accordingly, the aforesaid market value of Rs. 43,000/- was accepted as the market value of the acquired house. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium and interest as per law. 10. The Union of India has felt aggrieved against the enhancement awarded by the learned District Judge. Therefore, it filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard Shri P.C.Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajiv Bhalla, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 12. In my considered opinion, the assessment of the market value with regard to the super structures as assessed by the learned District Judge is absolutely just and proper. Nothing has been shown that the learned District Judge has in any manner given excessive compensation or has adopted such method of valuation which was contrary to law. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants relies upon The State of Kerala v. P.P. Hassan Koya, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1201 and Joginder Singh Saini v. The State of Haryana and Anr, (1981)83 P.L.R. 281. 14. In the State of Keralas case (supra) and Joginder Singh Sainis case (supra), it has been held that the rental value on acquired building could always furnish the guidelines for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 15. In view of the law laid down in P.P. Hassan Koyas case (supra) and Joginder Singh Saints case (supra), I do not find any scope for interference in the amount assessed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant being without any merit is dismissed. 16. Before parting with this judgment, an argument raised by Shri Rajiv Bhalla, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants may be noticed. Shri Bhalla has submitted that in fact that award was pronounced by the learned District Judge on January 30, 1984 and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to the statutory benefits as per the amended law. In this regard, Shri Bhalla has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Anr. Shri Bhalla has submitted that in fact that award was pronounced by the learned District Judge on January 30, 1984 and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to the statutory benefits as per the amended law. In this regard, Shri Bhalla has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghu-bir Singh (dead) by LRs etc. A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) of amendment Act in respect of an award made by the Collector between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. Likewise, the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before April 30, 1982. 17. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is held that the claimants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.