JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral) - Heard learned Counsel, and with their assistance record of the Court below has also been examined. Land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa belonging to the appellants was intended to be acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of Himri-Valley Road. Steps for its acquisition were initiated by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 23rd November, 1989. This notification was published in the HP. Government Rajpatra on 16th September, 1989. This was followed by Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Ronta, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that stand oi his clients before the learned court below and even at the time of hearing of this appeal is that assessment and award of compensation qua land in question is correct, as such they did not challenge it anywhere. He, however, stated that assessment of fruit bearing trees numbering 32 which were standing on the land in question is not in accordance with law governing the same. This if fact did not indicate the market value of such trees on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As such his clients claimed reference for determination of their correct market value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act. Thus prayer was made, to refer the matter to court for doing the needful. He further pointed out that assessment is made by the officials of the Horticulture Department of the respondent. According to him basis for assessing compensation is the formula prepared by the then Director of Horticulture of the respondent, Shri Harbans Singh, as far as back in the year 1966. Looking to the enormous increase in the cost of inputs of manures, pesticides, insecticides, wages etc., the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court below both fell into error by not giving adequate relief qua the compensation so far fruit bearing trees numbering 32 were concerned. 3. With a view to support his case, Mr. Ronta besides referring to the statements of his client, placed reliance on the statement of PW-3 M.R. Chaudhary, Horticulture Development Officer, as well as his report Ex. 3. With a view to support his case, Mr. Ronta besides referring to the statements of his client, placed reliance on the statement of PW-3 M.R. Chaudhary, Horticulture Development Officer, as well as his report Ex. PW-3/A. For enhancement of compensation reference was also made by Mr. Ronta to the statement of PW-4 J.K. Kaith, Investigator Grade-II from the office of Labour Burau, Shimla. This witness, according to Mr. Ronta, stated that between 1966 to 1989 there has been increase of 456 per cent in the consumer price index. According to Mr. Ronta, his clients are entitled to the increase atleast four and half times on the compensation assessed vide Ex. PW-1/A by none else, but an official of the Horticulture Department of the respondent. This document per him was not disputed even by the respondent. He also pointed out that in addition to this sum, his clients are also entitled to solatium and interest on the entire compensation, i.e. compensation as well as solatium in accordance with law. 4. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Advocate General who submitted that compensation assessed is adequate, so far trees are concerned and it does not call for interference in this appeal. According to him if the prayer made by the appellants is allowed, it will result in their undue enrichment which is never the purpose of the Act. 5. After having considered the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties and taking note of entire evidence, especially that of PW-1 Ramesh Chand, PW-3 M.R. Chaudhary, Horticulture Development Officer and PW-4 J.K. Kaith, from the office of Labour Bureau, and also for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, in my opinion this appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. As per Ex. PW-3/A, price of 32 fruit bearing trees has been assessed at Rs. 18,888.25 paise. In this behalf when a reference is made to the statement of PW-3, it is clear that the valuation of the fruit bearing plants was assessed in this case, in case the compensation had to be paid in the year 1966. He further stated that fruit plants would have been assessed on the same value In addition to this PW-4 J.K. Kaith has stated that there has been increase in the price index in the Himachal Pradesh to the extent of 456 per cent from the year 1966 till 1989. He further stated that fruit plants would have been assessed on the same value In addition to this PW-4 J.K. Kaith has stated that there has been increase in the price index in the Himachal Pradesh to the extent of 456 per cent from the year 1966 till 1989. He has placed on record a statement in this behalf as Ex. PW-4/A. Nothing has been extracted in his cross-examination so as to dislodge him on this aspect of the case. Even otherwise this court cannot loose site of the fact that prices of all the inputs in maintaining an orchard, like chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides labour etc. have increased many-fold. From a Central Government Organization, i.e. Labour Bureau, PW-4 was summoned a as a witness. For not accepting his statement, I see no reason including Ex. PW-4/A. When specifically questioned, though the learned Advocate General did not concede the claim of the appellants but was not in a position to specifically controvert also the plea of the appellants that there is increase costs of the inputs, as noted hereinabove. Court can take judicial notice of all these facts. 7. In Union of India and others v. Khazana Ram and others, 1998(1) SLC 479 a Division Bench of this Court was considering a case of assessment of compensation on the basis of increase in the price index as well as on Harbans Singhs formulae. 8. At the time of hearing of this appeal number of trees was not disputed on behalf of the respondent in this appeal. In these circumstances formulae contained in the Article "The Valuation of Fruit Trees" Basic Principle and Methods," by Harbans Singh, the then Director of Horticulture, HP. was taken not of in this judgment and after looking to the evidence on record regarding increase of price index, this court upheld the three fold increase for assessing the market value of the fruit trees in the year 1986. What was held in this behalf and also after taking note of decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1893 Revenue Law Reporter (P&H) 451 was as under:- "8. What was held in this behalf and also after taking note of decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1893 Revenue Law Reporter (P&H) 451 was as under:- "8. On the other hand, the method of evaluating the acquired land on the basis of the annual value of the produce thereof or in accordance with the formula generally known as capitalisation has recisely been disapproved by their Lordships of the Supreme in Reghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, for at least two reasons:- (i) That the owner may not have so far put his property to its best use or in the most lucrative manner; and (ii) in a case like the present one, the grove may not have yet started giving maximum yield. It was further observed that such a method of valuation by ascertaining the annual value of the product can and should be resorted to only when no other alternative method is available. As already pointed out in Chaturbhuj Pandes case (supra) (ho Supreme Court accepted the separate valuation of the fruit trees to determine the compensation payable for the acquired land. In the light of the weighty observations in these two judgments we have no hesitation in rejecting the above noted submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-authorities that in these cases the only reasonable method for determining the amount of compensation is on the basis of the annual crop value or as is commonly known, the method of capitalisation." 9. Another attempt was also made by the learned Advocate General, when he made a submission that trees and land is not to be separately assessed. According to him, appellants are either entitled to the price of the land as an orchard land or of the trees. In my considered view, this plea is no more open in view of the Standing Order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. as well as a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Collector L.A.C. Mandi v. Karam Singh and others and other connected cases, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694. In this case after relying on standing order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. and also taking note of Harbans Singhs formulae, it was held that land as well as trees standing thereon are to be assessed separately. 10. In this case after relying on standing order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. and also taking note of Harbans Singhs formulae, it was held that land as well as trees standing thereon are to be assessed separately. 10. For taking this view reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of J&K appellant y. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others respondent, AIR 1998 SC 2470. In this case it was held that for the land with fruit bearing trees separate compensation for fruit bearing trees and tube well etc. was payable in view of the circulars issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. In the case in hand, Standing Order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. is there, where under while assessing compensation price of the land, trees, structures etc. is to be separately assessed which will form the basis for assessment of compensation. In this view of the matter, the appellant being not entitled to the payment of compensation separately for trees and land urged on behalf of the respondent is hereby rejected. 11. At this stage Mr. Ronta submitted that interest on solatium has not been allowed by the District Judge. This plea was again controverted on behalf of the respondent. 12. So far nature and character of solatium under the Act is concerned, it is in fact allowed as compulsory acquisition charges over and above the assessment made on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. The only difference is that compensation is to be assessed on evidence/other materials. Whereas the solatium is fixed at 30% of such compensation It is allowed to a person who is not ready and willing to part with the acquired property, but is made to do so by operation of law. Thus, in my considered view, for all purposes it is an integral and in separatable part of compensation itself. This conclusion is arrived at, consequences have to follow. This is what was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, 2001(7) SCC 211 by a Constitution Bench. 13. What follows from the above discussion is that appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation so far 32 fruit bearing trees those were there on the land in question. Admittedly there is evidence of increase in the price-index between 1966 and 1989. 13. What follows from the above discussion is that appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation so far 32 fruit bearing trees those were there on the land in question. Admittedly there is evidence of increase in the price-index between 1966 and 1989. It has been accepted 456% in the year 1989. Consequently, it is held that the appellants are entitled to four time increase in the matter of assessment of compensation of these trees. Thus, it is held that instead of 18,888.25 paise, appellants are entitled to 75,553/-. In addition to this, they are also held entitled to solatium @ 30% on this amount, and interest on entire compensation under Section 23(1-A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation, in case it was not allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector, including solatium. It is clarified that any amount paid to the appellants in terms of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector shall be deduced out of the amount payable in terms of this judgment. Cost on the parties.