JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The only dispute surviving in the present appeal is with regard to the valuation of the tube-well which was acquired along with the land belonging to the claimant-appellant. 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on May 10, 1979, which was published on June 8, 1979. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on October 4, 1979, whereby the land as well as the super- structures standing thereupon were acquired. 3. The learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 60,878/- as the market value of the tube-well which was situated on the acquired land. 4. The claimant felt dissatisfied. He claimed a reference. The matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda 5. The claimants in support of their claim produced Shri H.S. Virdee as AW-1. Shri H.S. Virdee was an Engineer and a building expert and he submitted his reports Exs. A-1 to A-2. 6. In contrast to the aforesaid expert evidence, the Union of India chose to produce Shri K.S. Gondhara as RW-1. Shri Gondhara was also a building expert. He also submitted his report. 7. The learned Additional District Judge found that there was a great variance in the valuation assessed by the two experts, respectively, and as such found that there was a different of Rs. 11,570/- in the valuation and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge found that 10% of the said difference would be adequate enhancement with regard to the compensation. However, while enhancing the amount, the learned Additional District Judge had also taken into consideration that besides the aforesaid enhancement, the claimant would also get 30% solatium and 12% more as enhancement as per new amendment of the Act and, therefore, in all they would get 42% increase. 8. The claimant felt dissatisfied and approached this Court through the present appeal. 9. 8. The claimant felt dissatisfied and approached this Court through the present appeal. 9. Shri M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the approach of the learned Additional District was totally contrary to law, inasmuch as, firstly, formula adopted by the learned Additional District Judge for granting the enhancement was totally contrary to law and secondly, the learned Additional District Judge had committed an error of law in taking into consideration the solatium as well as the 12% additional compensation in view of the amendment in the Act. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid two components of solatium and additional compensation could not have been taken into consideration. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in fact the learned Additional District Judge had himself observed that the report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee was detailed one, whereas the report submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara was not that detailed. On that basis, it is argued by the learned counsel that there was no justification to reject the report of Shri H.S. Virdee. The said report was not shown to be defective or erroneous in any manner. Nothing has been shown by the respondent that while submitting the aforesaid report and the valuation of the super-structure, the accepted principles of valuation had not been adopted. 11. On the other hand Shri Anil Sharma, learned Additional Central Government standing counsel has submitted that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly legal and valid and do not warrant any interference. According to Shri Sharma, the formula adopted by the learned Additional District Judge was wholly just and proper. 12. At this stage, it may also be relevant to notice here the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Bachan Singh, 1989(2) RLR 140. The said judgment has been relied by Shri Sarin to contend that the report of the aforesaid expert, Shri H.S. Virdee, had been duly accepted by this Court with regard to the same acquisition. According to Shri Sarin, there was no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to reject the report. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the leaned counsel. I find that the present appeal must succeed. According to Shri Sarin, there was no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to reject the report. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the leaned counsel. I find that the present appeal must succeed. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge makes it absolutely clear that no reasons had been given by him to reject the report of Shri H.S. Virdee. Merely, because the other expert produced by the acquiring authorities, namely, Shri K.S. Gondhara, RW-1, had submitted a report showing less valuation of the super-structures would by itself be no ground to reject the report of Shri H.S. Virdee. In fact, the learned Additional District Judge had himself observed that the report of Shri H.S. Virdee was detailed one and contained reasons. After having made those observations, it was not open to him to reject the aforesaid report merely because the other expert had give a lesser valuation. In fact, the respondent had failed to lead any evidence or to show any defect in the report of Shri H.S. Virdee. Another fact which has already been noticed by me is that in Bachan Singhs case (supra), the report of Shri H.S. Virdee had been accepted in toto. In fact, some cuts imposed, by the learned Additional District Judge in the aforesaid case, on the valuation report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee were held unsustainable by this Court. 14. As such, the present appeal is allowed. The claimant would be entitled to get the amount of compensation as assessed by Shri H.S. Virdee. In this manner, the enhancement available to the claimant would be Rs. 11,570/- over and above the market value as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. Besides this, the claimant shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs. Appeal allowed.