JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.: These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the award, dated 23.3.1991, of the court of learned Additional District Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a notification under Section 54 of the Act was issued on 14.6.1984 by the Central Government through Superintendent of Post Office, Dharamshala, to acquire the land measuring 6231.53 sq.mtrs., as detailed in the petition, situated in Tehsil Dharamshala, Mauza Dharamshala, for public purpose, namely, construction of office of Superintendent of Post Office, Dharamshala and residential quarters. After following the procedure, the Collector assessed the value of the structures standing on the acquired land to be Rs.1,07,000/-. According to the Collector, one building, the cost of which was Rs.7,000/-, was owned by land owners Khazana Ram etc. in equal shares and other three buildings were constructed by the tenants Khazana Ram, Dasondhi Ram etc. and was possessed by the said persons in equal shares as tenants at will. The cost of the said structures was assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-, which was assessed through office of Deputy Commissioner by the Public Works Department. 3. It was further alleged that the Collector assessed the market value of the land on the basis of the sale transactions during the last five years preceding the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector assessed the value of the land as under: Sl.No. Classification Area in Sq.metres Rate per sq.metre Net cost of the land 1. Barani Awal 184.85 Rs.43/- 7955.00 2. Bagicha Barani 118.13 Rs.93/- 10,974.00 3. Banjar Land (Jayia Sufed) 3647.60 Rs.46/- 1,67,808.00 4. Gair Mumkin 2143.36 Rs.191/- 4,09,504.00 Total: 6094.36 5,96,241.00 4. It was further alleged that the land which was already in possession of the Central Government through the Post Office was measuring 5367.60 sq.metres. The portion of the land was situated in Shamlat and was under the tenancy of the Central Government under Khazana Ram etc. on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. The compensation assessed by the Collector for this land as well as for the building and trees was as under: 5. The portion of the land was situated in Shamlat and was under the tenancy of the Central Government under Khazana Ram etc. on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. The compensation assessed by the Collector for this land as well as for the building and trees was as under: 5. The Collector also gave the following relief in addition to the above award: 30% C.A.C. u/s 23(2): Rs.1,98,601.000 Addition of amount 12% as Provided under Sec.23(1-A) w.e.f. 2.11.85 to 19.4.88: Rs.1,99,400.00 Total: Rs.10,60,004.00 6. The Collector assessed the compensation of the land, buildings and trees the possession of which was to be taken from the land owners as under: Sl.No. Classification Amount awarded 1. Costs of land Rs.64,218.00 2. Costs of trees Rs.1680.00 3. Costs of buildings (1 building) Rs.7000.00 Total Rs.72,898.00 Relief 30% C.A.C. u/s 23(2) Rs.21,869.00 Additional amount of the rate of 12% as provided u/s 23(1-A) w.e.f. Rs.21869.00 2.11.1985 to 19.4.1988 Total Rs.1,16,636.00 Grand Total Rs.11,76,640.00 Thus, in all, the Collector had awarded Rs.11,76,640.00 for the acquired land, buildings and the trees standing thereon. 7. The compensation as per the award made by Collector was to be paid according to the shares as entered in the ownership column. The compensation was not acceptable to the petitioners, who preferred two petitions alleging that by virtue of will of late Shri Hodi, dated 23.11.1958, only the petitioners are entitled to the compensation. They also assailed the award by stating that the same is not in accordance with the registered Will of Hodi and apart from the petitioners, other persons were considered for compensation who were not entitled in view of the Will. It was also alleged that the compensation in respect of the Shamlat land is also legally payable to the petitioners in accordance with the ratio of their shares alongwith possession over the land. They pleaded that they had no opportunity to file objections before the Collector and since the compensation was assessed behind their back, it was not acceptable to the petitioners. They also pleaded that the compensation in respect of the land and buildings is on the lower side since the land was situated in an attractive side in Dharamshala Municipal Committee area. They also agitated the assessing of the market value of the abadi land. 8. Replies were filed by the respondents. They also pleaded that the compensation in respect of the land and buildings is on the lower side since the land was situated in an attractive side in Dharamshala Municipal Committee area. They also agitated the assessing of the market value of the abadi land. 8. Replies were filed by the respondents. They denied their knowledge in regard to the Will made by late Hodi in favour of the petitioners and they also challenged the compensation awarded by the Collector. 9. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled by the learned Additional District Judge: “1. Whether the acquired property has not been properly valued for the purposes of compensation, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation in respect of Shamlat land possessed by them irrespective of the entries in the revenue papers, if so, to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the right of respondent Nos.2 to 13 to receive compensation stand extinguished on the basis of Will, if so, its effect? OPP 4. Whether the objection of petitioner filed before the Collector was barred by the time, as alleged? OPR. 5. Relief.” 10. Parties led their evidence and the learned Additional District Judge vide his impugned judgment decided the issues as under: Issue No.1: Partly yes partly No. Issue No.2: Yes. Issue No.3: No. Issue No.4: No. Thus, the petition was allowed and compensation for the structures standing on the acquired property was enhanced from Rs.1,07,000/- to Rs.2,71,240/-. It was also held that the compensation qua the structures shall be apportioned in between the petitioners and the legal heirs of Khazana and Devia in equal shares. The rest of the compensation was also ordered to be apportioned between the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 13. Compensation qua acquisition charges and interest etc. was also awarded by the learned trial Court. 11. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners had filed the appeal under Section 54 of the Act. Another appeal was preferred by the Union of India and the State of H.P. against the enhancement of the award by the learned Additional District Judge. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record of the case. 13. Another appeal was preferred by the Union of India and the State of H.P. against the enhancement of the award by the learned Additional District Judge. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record of the case. 13. Coming to the findings on issue No.1 in regard to the acquired property having not been valued properly for the purpose of compensation, the submission made by the learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India were that the compensation was wrongly enhanced for the structures by the court of the learned Additional District Judge from Rs.1,07,000/-to Rs.2,71,240/-. Coming to the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, it was observed that buildings, four in number, were standing on the acquired land and these structures were existing over the acquired land since 1923 and the Post Office Department came into its possession after two years of the construction of the said building as a tenant and thereafter the Department decided to acquire the land and is still in possession of the buildings. The petitioners had relied upon the assessment made by PW-4 Nagarmal Gupta and respondents have relied upon the statement of RW-7 R.C. Sehgqal. PW-4 Nagarmal Gupta is the Municipal Engineer and at the relevant time was in HPPWD. The assessment made by Shri R.C. Sehgal RW-7 was made when the matter was pending before the Land Acquisition Officer while PW-4 was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the Court. 14. A perusal of the statement made by PW-4 Nagarmal Gupta shows that he had inspected the spot himself in presence of the parties and submitted his report Ext.P- 12. He gave the year of the construction of the building as 1923. After calculating the estimated age of the building, depreciation cost and costs of approach road etc., he assessed the value of the building at Rs.2,71,240/-. The total life of the building was assessed to be 80 years. He had based his valuation as per the schedule of the HPPWD. His opinion was based upon his experience, however, he had not consulted the table of HPPWD. 15. The total life of the building was assessed to be 80 years. He had based his valuation as per the schedule of the HPPWD. His opinion was based upon his experience, however, he had not consulted the table of HPPWD. 15. On the other hand, the assessment made by RW-7 R.C. Sehgal was not relied upon by the learned trial Court since he did not go to the spot, had deputed his Assistant Engineer for spot inspection and prepared the valuation report based upon the information supplied to him by his Assistant Engineer. The Assistant Engineer, who had in fact visited the spot, was not examined by the respondents. None of the petitioners was present at the time of inspection by the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, the report of the said expert was not relied upon by the learned trial Court keeping in view the infirmities as pointed out above. On appraisal of the report of PW-4 Nagarmal Gupta and after making comparative study with the report submitted by RW-7 R.C. Sehgal, the Court had come to the conclusion that the cost of structures acquired was Rs.2,71,240/-. This fact cannot be ignored that this assessment was made for the buildings, which were four in number, and these structures were existing since 1923 and had lived the life for about 60 years or so. No infirmity could be pointed out by the Union of India in the said assessment made by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, namely, PW-4 Nagarmal Gupta and as such there are no reasons to disagree with the findings given by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard. 16. Coming to the valuation made for the landed property, the land was situated within the municipal limits of Dharamshala Town. The Collector had assessed the market value of the land to be at Rs.5,32,023/- for the land which is in possession of the Superintendent of Pose Office, and Rs.64,218/- in respect of the land which was not in their possession. In determining the market value of the land at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the sale instances of the lands in comparison to value of the land acquired were to be proved, which have been effected prior to the issuance of the notification. In determining the market value of the land at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the sale instances of the lands in comparison to value of the land acquired were to be proved, which have been effected prior to the issuance of the notification. The mere plea of the petitioners that they intended to construct a Hotel over the site or the land was of great value was not substantiated by any evidence. The petitioners are in the possession of the land and they have to prove the contention raised by them and also have to prove the sale transactions in the nearby vicinity. 17. The petitioners had placed reliance upon one sale transaction vide which PW-3 Om Nath, who had sold his five marlas of land for a sum of Rs.45,000/- in the year 1988 and the copy of the sale deed was placed on record as Ext.P-11 and the market was located at 1/2 km. from this land. PW-5 Surinder Kumar Mahli was the purchaser of the land adjacent to the acquired land, who had purchased one kanal land on 7.10.1988 for a sum of Rs.90,000/-, vide sale deed Ext.PW-5/A. The petitioners had not examined any person who purchased the land from PW-3 Om Nath or the vendor who sold the land to PW-5 Surinder Kumar Mahli. Therefore, the petitioners had not led any evidence to prove the value of the land or the sale transactions which had taken place prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and they had led evidence to prove the sale transactions subsequent to the said date and that too after about four years. Thus, these sale transactions were of no help to the petitioners. 18. The Collector had assessed the market value on the basis of the sale transactions preceding five years from the date of issuance of the notification under Section of the Act. Therefore, the valuation made by the Collector in regard to the land can be said to be proper and did not deserve to be enhanced accordingly. 19. 18. The Collector had assessed the market value on the basis of the sale transactions preceding five years from the date of issuance of the notification under Section of the Act. Therefore, the valuation made by the Collector in regard to the land can be said to be proper and did not deserve to be enhanced accordingly. 19. Coming to the findings of the learned trial Court, the petitioners had preferred their claim on the basis of the Will allegedly executed in their favour and for that Issue No.3 was framed as to whether the right of respondents No.2 to 13 to receive compensation stands extinguished on the basis of the Will. 20. To prove the Will in question, the petitioners had examined PW-6 Parkash Singh, Advocate. He has only stated that as counsel he presented the Will for registration on behalf of the sons of late Hodi and the statements of daughters of Hodi and statements of marginal witnesses were recorded. The original Will in question was not produced by the petitioners. They simply alleged that the same has been lost. They filed an application for secondary evidence which was allowed by the Court on 22.5.1990. The Will in question was dated 23.11.1958, which was presented for registration on 21.9.1959. Hodi died in February 1955. PW-2 Dasaundhi Ram is the petitioner himself and his statement does not suggest that the Will was written in his presence. He has filed the certified copies of the statements of some of the witnesses, but these certified copies, in itself, cannot be said to be the proof of the fact that these statements were made by them and these statements are not per se admissible in evidence. RW1 Shri Roshan Lal has denied the fact that any will was produced before the Sub Registrar. He stated that in regard to the estate of Hodi mutations were sanctioned in favour of his sons and daughters. Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-7 are the certified copies of the application for registration of the Will and the statements made at that time. These documents, as held by the learned trial Court rightly, were not proved in accordance with law and the mere fact that they were exhibited does not dispense with the procedure prescribed for proving the documents. Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-7 are the certified copies of the application for registration of the Will and the statements made at that time. These documents, as held by the learned trial Court rightly, were not proved in accordance with law and the mere fact that they were exhibited does not dispense with the procedure prescribed for proving the documents. A perusal of Ext.P-8, certified copy of the order of Sub Registrar, shows that the Will was presented by one of the petitioners Dasaundhi Ram and it was ordered to be registered after the death of Hodi and the title of the case and the details of the parties who were present were also not mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the daughters of the petitioners, namely, the respondents were party to the said proceedings or not. Ext.P-9 is the copy of the register of Wills, however, registration of the Will is no proof of its due execution. The petitioners should have proved on record the copy of the Will from the office of the Sub Registrar when the permission to lead secondary evidence was granted. No evidence was led by the petitioners to prove that the Will was executed in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the learned trial Court had rightly concluded that the Will in question was not proved and as such it had rightly concluded that the right of respondents No.2 to 13 to receive the compensation qua the estate of Hodi was not extinguished. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments had strongly submitted that since the Will in question was registered and the entries from the register or the certified copies of the statements have been proved, they are sufficient to prove the due execution of the will. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments had strongly submitted that since the Will in question was registered and the entries from the register or the certified copies of the statements have been proved, they are sufficient to prove the due execution of the will. I am unable to agree with these submissions and the mere fact that the Will was got registered after the death of the executant and the executant was never produced during his life time for registration of the Will, the Will in question does not become genuine and has to be proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses and in case the application for secondary evidence was filed, the certified copy of the Will or its attested copy should have been proved by examining the attesting witnesses, which was not done and, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly disbelieved the evidence in regard to the Will. 22. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in both the appeals as well as in Cross Objections, which are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this judgment be placed on the record of RFA No.195 of 1991.