JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and cross-objections, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals and cross-objections are directed against the award dated 30.6.200 1 made by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr. 3.Key facts necessary for the adjudication of these appeals and cross-objections are that the land was acquired for N.J.P.C. by issuing notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 5.3.1988 and the same was published in the official gazette on 18.6.1988. Notifications under sections 6 and 7 were issued on 16.6.1989. The award was made on 27.2.1991 and 4.7.1991 by the Land Acquisition Collector. According to the appellants/cross-objectors, the market value of the houses and fruit bearing/non-fruit bearing trees has not been correctly assessed by the District Judge on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. According to them, for the land abutting National Highway, higher compensation ought to have been awarded. RFA Nos. 46 and 48 of 2002 4.The appellants Lumbru Ram and others have claimed the market value of their buildings under acquisition at ! 14,50,000/-. According to them, the market value of the buildings under acquisition was ! 300/- per square feet of the covered area. PW- 1 Lumbru Ram vide his statement recorded on 25.6.1996 has not deposed about the market value of the building under acquisition. However, he has deposed that inadequate compensation for the building has been made. He has got the building evaluated from PW-9 Bachhitter Singh, Architect. Statement of PW- 1 Lumbru Ram is available at page 191 in RFA No. 263/2001 compromised on 30.7.2007. PW-9 Bachhitter Singh has filed his report Ex.PW-9/A, which is at page 623 of the record. According to him, the value of the new block was initially ! 2,93,567/- and by additions: (i) extra for carriage : (a) cement 150 KMs, (b) bricks 150 KMs, (c) wood 35 KMs, (d) G.I. sheets, (e) head load from road head to site 1 KM, (ii) premium 78%, (iii) electricity installation 5%, (iv) water supply, (v) extra for construction in rural area 10%. the value came to ! 6,50,814/-. The value assessed for old block was initially assessed at ! the value came to ! 6,50,814/-. The value assessed for old block was initially assessed at ! 4,34,813/- and by similar additions and adding premium extra carriage for slate from 4 KMs, it was assessed at ! 9,69,599/-. The value assessed for one room was ! 50,822/- initially. The total value assessed after additions and premium was ! 1,80,925/-. The initial value assessed by PW-9 Bachhitter Singh was ! 7,79,202/- for all the three structures and after additions value came to ! 18,0 1,338. The appellants have been paid the amount on the basis of the value assessed by RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta. They have proved the report Ex.RA. The total value of the structure was assessed at ! 3,38,516/-. The statement of PW-9 has not been relied upon by the District Judge only on the ground that he was an Architect and not Civil Engineer. According to the learned District Judge, RW-3 K.K. Gupta has counted for each and every item of the construction used in the construction of the building under acquisition. Learned District Judge presumed that he had prepared the estimate after visiting the spot. PW-9 Bachiter Singh in his statement has deposed that he was an Architect and Valuer of Income Tax Department. It has come in the statement that he was working as valuer for Industrial Development Bank of India, PSIDC and Steel Authority of India Limited. He has obtained five years degree from Chandigarh College in 1981. He has assessed the building at the rates prevailing in the year 1988 by applying Schedule rates prepared by the H.P.P.W.D. in the year 1987. He has prepared the maps as per the spot. He has undertaken the estimates of the appellant Lumbru Ram, Charan Dass, Gauri Saran, Savir Dass, Chandu Lal, Baldev Kamal, Krishan Dass, Tara Chand, Bhupesh Kumar, Surmi Devi and Shabnu Ram vide Ex.PW-9/A, A-1 to Ex/PW-9/J. He has prepared the estimates after visiting the spot and carrying out measurements on the spot. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that few of the houses were old and few were newly constructed. According to him, for the first ten years, the depreciation is 1/2% to 1%, but it depends on the material used for the construction of building. According to him, the wood used was of Deodar and Kail species. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that few of the houses were old and few were newly constructed. According to him, for the first ten years, the depreciation is 1/2% to 1%, but it depends on the material used for the construction of building. According to him, the wood used was of Deodar and Kail species. He has deposed that if the quality of the wood is good, it can be re-used. According to him, he has applied the HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987 and thereafter applied premium for the year 1988. Learned District Judge has brushed aside the statement of PW-9 Bachiter Singh, as discussed hereinabove, on the ground that he was an Architect. However, he is valuer for Income Tax Department, PSIDC, Steel Authority of India Limited and Industrial Development Bank of India. There is no cross- examination by the respondents on this issue. According to him, he has prepared the estimate after visiting the spot. RFA No. 47/2002 5. According to the appellant Tara Chand, the market value of their building was ! 3,89,22 1 /-. According to the appellant, the Land Acquisition Collector has inadequately assessed the market value of the building. He has also got the land evaluated from PW-9 Bachiter Singh. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has assessed the value initially at ! 1,17,516/- and after making additions he has assessed the value of the house at ! 3,89,221/- vide report Ex.PW-9/G. The appellant has been paid ! 1,25,866/- on the basis of Ex.RG. RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta have made assessment of the building of the appellant. In this case also, the learned District Judge has brushed aside the statement of PW-9 Bachiter Singh, Architect and the report prepared by him by giving undue weightage to the report Ex.RG. Cross-Objection No. 2 1/2002. 6.In this case, appeal Nos. 257/2001 and 262/2001 were compromised on 30.7.2007. However, the cross-objections filed by the cross-objector Daulat Ram survived. Daulat Ram Negi had claimed the market value of the building under acquisition at ! 3,00,000/-. He has got the building assessed from PW-7 Jitender Kumar, Architect. PW-7 has assessed the value of the building at ! 3,38,616/-. RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta have assessed the value of the building at ! 1,85,947/-. PW-7 Jitender Kumar has assessed the value initially at ! 1,70,673/- and after additions, the value has been assessed at ! 3,38,616/-. PW-7 has assessed the value of the building at ! 3,38,616/-. RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta have assessed the value of the building at ! 1,85,947/-. PW-7 Jitender Kumar has assessed the value initially at ! 1,70,673/- and after additions, the value has been assessed at ! 3,38,616/-. The claimant has been paid ! 1,85,947/- on the basis of report Ex.RB. PW-7 Jatinder Kumar is an Architect. He is valuer of Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. He has obtained degree of Architecture. He has proved degree vide Ex.PW-7/A. He has also enclosed the copy of registration certificate. According to him, he has visited the spot 5-6 years back in the year 1991. He has prepared the detailed assessments of the building as per HPPWD Schedule of rates of 1987 in the year 1988. He has undertaken the assessment as per valuation of 1988. He has prepared the estimates of Malti Devi, Narayan Dass, Krishna Devi, Sumitra Devi, Satya Devi, Daulat Ram Negi, Shyam Lal and Sita Ram vide Ex.PW-7/C, D, E, F, G, H and Ex.PW-7/J. In his cross- examination, he has deposed that he has visited the spot alongwith his Draftsman. The maximum houses were made of wood and slate. He has not seen the assessment made by the Public Works Department. He has prepared the report in the year 1991. When he prepared the estimate, the building was in perfect condition. He has taken the wood to be of first class Deodar and Kail. He has denied the suggestion that class-III wood was used in the construction of the house. 7.In this case, the learned District Judge has given weightage to the report Ex. RB prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. The statement of PW-7 Jitender Kumar hasbeen brushed aside by the learned District Judge on the ground that RW-3 K.K. Gupta was responsible officer and he could not make false statement and the other reason assigned for not accepting the report of PW-7 Jatinder Kumar is that the General Power of Attorney PW- 1 Bias Mani of the claimant has admitted that Engineering Wing of N.J.P.C. has carried out inspection and assessment of her building under acquisition in her presence. Learned District Judge has ignored the assessment and report of PW-7 Jitender Kumar without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons. Learned District Judge has ignored the assessment and report of PW-7 Jitender Kumar without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons. He has prepared the report in the year 1991 after taking into consideration the HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987. RFA No. 348/2001 8.In this case, only the land was acquired and neither house nor trees were acquired. Cross-objections No. 461/2001 & RFA No. 453/2001 9. In cross-objection No. 461/2001 the house and trees have been acquired, but in RFA No. 453/2001 neither house nor trees have been acquired. The claimant has claimed compensation for his building and trees in Cross-Objections No. 461/2001. According to him, the value of his building should have been @ ! 300/- per square feet of the covered area. The market value of the building was Rs. 12,50,000/-. He has examined his son PW- 1 Ramesh Chand. PW- 1 has stated that the Land Acquisition Collector has inadequately assessed the market value of the land and house property under acquisition. He has got the property evaluated from PW-9 Bachiter Singh, Architect. He has been doing the business in the shops under acquisition and had been earning Rs. 80,000/- per annum. He has also tendered the copy Ex.PW- 1/B of the balance sheet. The first building was constructed in the year 1955, the second building was constructed in the year 1959, the third building was constructed in the year 1978 and the fourth building was constructed in the year 1987. He has been allotted commercial plot. 10. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has assessed the value of the old shop, newly constructed house and house-cum­shop initially at Rs. 1,00,672/-, Rs. 163,499 and Rs. 3,49,459/-, respectively and assessed the value after additions at Rs. 1,92,875/-, Rs. 3,34,378/- and Rs. 7,05,380/-, respectively. The value of the building has been assessed as per exhibit RX- 1 to RX-4, at Rs. 4,32,801/-. Bachiter Singh has proved Ex.PW-9/B. According to the learned District Judge, PW­9, Bachhitter Singh has allowed higher rates for valuation of some of the items for construction compared with reference to HPPWD Schedule of rates of 1987. According to him, he has allowed lakhs of rupees on account of underground items of construction but has not indicated such underground items of construction/foundation in the drawing prepared by him. According to him, the investigation was carried out in the year 1990. They have inspected number of buildings within 4-6 days. According to him, he has allowed lakhs of rupees on account of underground items of construction but has not indicated such underground items of construction/foundation in the drawing prepared by him. According to him, the investigation was carried out in the year 1990. They have inspected number of buildings within 4-6 days. According to him, since the buildings have been constructed in the year 1955, 1959, 1978 and 1987, PW-9, Bachiter Singh, ought to have worked out depreciation. According to the Ld. District Judge, two of the buildings under acquisition made with stones and mud mortar have completed half of their lives. Learned District Judge has also held that PW-9 and his staff have prepared the valuation reports much after the inspection and the possibility of error could not be ruled out. RW-3 K.K. Gupta has assessed the market value of one of the buildings in view of the sample building. According to learned District Judge, PW-9 has not correctly worked out the value of the building under acquisition. According to him, the investigation has been carried out by PW-9 without issuing notice to NJPC’s authorities. Statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta has been accepted. In this case also, statement of PW-9, Bachiter Singh has been brushed aside and statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta has been heavily relied upon. No cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned by the learned District Judge while disagreeing with his report. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has visited the spot and prepared the report as per HPPWD Schedule of Rate of 1987. However, learned District Judge has rightly opined that depreciation of the building has to be taken into consideration. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has only deposed that 1/2% -1% depreciation is made for the first ten years, but it depends on the material used in the construction. Cross-objections No. 171/2002 and 172/2002 11.In this case, only the land was acquired and neither house nor trees were acquired. RFA No. 349/2001 12. The claimant Dhundi Ram has sought enhancement of the market value of his building and trees under acquisition. According to him, the market value of building under acquisition was Rs. 300/- per square feet of the covered area. According to him, he was owner-in­possession of two shops measuring 10 x10 ft each constructed with stone masonry and CGI roofing. According to him, he was entitled to Rs. 3.00 Lakh as compensation. According to him, the market value of building under acquisition was Rs. 300/- per square feet of the covered area. According to him, he was owner-in­possession of two shops measuring 10 x10 ft each constructed with stone masonry and CGI roofing. According to him, he was entitled to Rs. 3.00 Lakh as compensation. Dhundhi Ram has appeared as PW- 1 in witness box on 18.12.1996. He has deposed that he has been paid inadequate compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Collector has paid him Rs. 1,13,938 / - of the building under acquisition on the assessment made by RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta. He has not got his house evaluated from any valuer. In view of this, learned District Judge has rightly upheld the assessment as made by the Land Acquisition Collector for the construction of the house under acquisition. Cross-objections No. 200/2 13. According to the claimant Sumitra Devi, the market value of her building was ! Rs. 1,25,000/-. She has appeared as PW- 1. Her statement was recorded on 8.8.1996. She got her building assessed from PW-7 Jitender Kumar. He has assessed the market value of the building at Rs. 66,111/-, at the first instance and after allowing premium, he has assessed the market value of building at Rs. 1,28,000/-. RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3, K.K. Gupta have assessed the market value of the building at Rs. 7 1,800/- vide Ex. RX, RY and RZ. 14. In this case, learned District Judge has given undue weightage to the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. He has brushed aside the statement of PW-7 Jitender Kumar. The reason assigned for accepting the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta is that the claimant has admitted that he has carried out the inspection of the building in her presence. PW-7 Jitender Kumar is valuer for Bank of India, UCO Bank and Punjab National Bank. He has obtained his degree in Architecture. He has also produced his certificate. He has proved estimates Ex. PW-7/A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and Ex.PW-7/J. Cross-objections No. 105/2002. 15. The claimant Surmi has claimed enhancement of compensation for acquisition of her building. According to her, market value of the building under acquisition was ! 1.00 Lakh. Her statement was recorded on 8.8.1996. According to her, the Collector Land Acquisition has inadequately assessed the market value of the building under acquisition. 15. The claimant Surmi has claimed enhancement of compensation for acquisition of her building. According to her, market value of the building under acquisition was ! 1.00 Lakh. Her statement was recorded on 8.8.1996. According to her, the Collector Land Acquisition has inadequately assessed the market value of the building under acquisition. She has also got her building evaluated from PW-9, Bachiter Singh. According to PW-9 Bachiter Singh, he has assessed the value of the house initially at ! 82,740/- and after making additions it came to ! 1,61,960/-. According to RW-3 K.K. Gupta, the market value of the house was ! 33,767/-. Learned District Judge has again not relied upon the statement of PW-9 Bachiter Singh on the ground that he was only an architect and not a Civil Engineer. According to him, PW-9 has exaggerated the value of house since claimant has claimed the value at ! 1.00 lakh only. He has also brushed aside statement of PW-9 on the ground that he has not prepared the drawing of building under acquisition. According to him, the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta could not be rejected as he has no illwill against the claimant. According to the learned District Judge, the distance for which extra carriage has been allowed, has nowhere been indicated. According to him, sand, Bajri and slates were readily available in the nearby area. Learned District Judge has placed again heavy reliance upon statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta and has altogether ignored the report of PW-9. RFA No. 344/2001 & RFA No. 15/2002 16. Claimant Lachhi Ram has appeared as PW- 1. His statement was recorded on 10.10.1996. He has got his house evaluated from PW- 11 L.K. Grover. He has prepared the reports Ex.PW- 11/B, Ex.PW- 11/C and Ex.PW-1 1/D. According to Ex.PW-1 1/B, he has assessed the value of the house initially at ! 59,568/- and after making additions the value was assessed at ! 99,443/-. The value of the house, as per Ex.PW- 11/C, was assessed at ! 2,10,856/- initially and after making additions it was assessed at ! 4,26,403/-. In Ex.PW- 11 /D the value has been assessed at ! 1,30,230 and after making additions, it has been assessed at Rs. 2,41,500/-. The total assessment wasRs.! 7,67,346/- against Rs. 4,00,654/- initially assessed. He has been paid Rs. 5,09,432/- on the basis of the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. 17. 4,26,403/-. In Ex.PW- 11 /D the value has been assessed at ! 1,30,230 and after making additions, it has been assessed at Rs. 2,41,500/-. The total assessment wasRs.! 7,67,346/- against Rs. 4,00,654/- initially assessed. He has been paid Rs. 5,09,432/- on the basis of the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. 17. Learned District Judge has not relied upon the statement of PW- 11 L.K. Grover only on the ground that he has allowed 80% increase on account of rise in price index of labour and material with a view to work out the market value of the house property of the claimant in 1991. According to the District Judge, he has worked out the market value of the buildings of the claimant in April, 1991 when inspection and assessment was made by him. According to him, the market value was to be assessed of 5.3.1988/18.6.1988. According to him, PW­11 has not disclosed his qualification as Civil Engineer. According to District Judge, RW-3 K.K. Gupta has experience of 30 years as Civil Engineer and has worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in Nathpa Jhakri Power Project with effect from 1981 to 1990. According to the District Judge, the inspection conducted by RW-3 K.K. Gupta could not be in absence of the claimants. He has again relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta and has altogether brushed aside the reports of PW-1 1, i.e. Ex.PW-1 1/B to Ex.PW-1 1/D. PW-1 1 L.C. Grover has deposed that he was qualified Engineer and Valuer. He has prepared the estimates on the basis of H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not called Patwari on the spot. He has also not summoned officer/official of N.J.P.C and P.W.D. He has admitted that he has not separately shown the estimates of the foundation in his drawings. The statement of PW- 11 could not be brushed aside by the District Judge in its entirety. It has come in his statement that he was Engineer and Valuer. He has applied the HPPWD Schedule of rates of 1987. Cross-objections No.95/2002: 18. According to the claimant Krishana Devi, she was entitled to market value of the building at ! 300/- per square feet. According to her, the value of the building was at ! Rs. 2,50,000/-. J.R. Negi has appeared as PW-1 on behalf of the claimant Krishna Devi on 25.6.1996. Cross-objections No.95/2002: 18. According to the claimant Krishana Devi, she was entitled to market value of the building at ! 300/- per square feet. According to her, the value of the building was at ! Rs. 2,50,000/-. J.R. Negi has appeared as PW-1 on behalf of the claimant Krishna Devi on 25.6.1996. He has got the building evaluated from PW-7 Jitender Kumar, Architect. He has given the description of the house. PW­7 Jitender Kumar has deposed that he has assessed the market value of the building of the claimant at ! 1,66,500/-. The claimant has been paid ! 66,572/- on the basis of report Ex.RX/A and Ex. RX/B prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. PW-7 Jitender Kumar has proved the report Ex.PW-7/D. He has inspected the site in the year 1991 and prepared the report Ex.PW-7/B in the year 1992. Though according to RW-3, the market value of the buildings under acquisition of the claimant Krishna Devi was Rs. 66,572/-, but the Collector Land Acquisition has assessed the market value at Rs. 7,954/-. The apparent reasons for giving less amount was that the claimant has failed to prove and establish the location of the buildings under acquisition. In this case, report of PW-7 Jitender Kumar has been discarded by the learned District Judge in its entirety and has given undue importance to Ex.RX/A prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. PW-7 Jitender Kumar has been awarded degree of Architecture. Cross Objections No. 174/2002: 19. The claimant Banarsi Dass has claimed enhancement of compensation for acquisition of his building. According to him, the market value of his building was ! 300/- per square feet. He has appeared as PW- 1. He has not stated the market value of his building under acquisition. Though, he has deposed that he got the building under acquisition evaluated, however, he has not led any evidence in this behalf. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 76,322/- on the basis of Ex. RX. The learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that he was not entitled to any enhancement for the building under acquisition. RFA No. 350/2001 20. The claimant Baldev Singh has claimed the market value of the building at Rs. 7,20,000/-. He has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, he has constructed the building abutting NH-22. RX. The learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that he was not entitled to any enhancement for the building under acquisition. RFA No. 350/2001 20. The claimant Baldev Singh has claimed the market value of the building at Rs. 7,20,000/-. He has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, he has constructed the building abutting NH-22. There were two shops in the ground floor and first and second floor were being used for residence. He has got the building evaluated from Bachiter Singh. Bachiter Singh has appeared as PW-9. He has proved his report Ex.PW-9/E. He has assessed the value at Rs. 2,67,080/- initially and after additions he has assessed the value at Rs. 6,53,861/-. RW-3 K.K. Gupta has proved the report Ex.RX. According to him, the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,88,884/-. The statement of PW-9 Bachiter Singh has been brushed aside by the learned District Judge on the ground that he was an Architect and not a Civil Engineer. According to the learned District Judge, PW-9 Bachiter Singh has not signed and authenticated his valuation report. He has relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According to the District Judge, PW-9 Bachiter Singh has worked out the market value on the higher side. The other reason assigned for not relying on the statement of PW-9 was that he has not prepared the drawing by comparing the same with the drawings of the same building prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. The District Judge has given undue importance to the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta and has altogether ignored the report of PW-9 Bachiter Singh. PW­9 is an Architect and Valuer of PSIDC, Steel Authority of India and Industrial Development Bank of India. He was also valuer for Income Tax Department. No cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned for discarding the report of PW-9 by the District Judge. Cross-Objections No.93/2002 21. According to the claimant Sita Ram, the market value of the building under acquisition was ! 1,25,000/-. His statement was recorded on 19. 12.1996 as PW- 1. According to him, the Collector Land Acquisition has not adequately assessed the market value of the property. He has got his building evaluated from PW-7 Jitender Kumar, Architect. He has assessed the value of the house at ! 1,25,000/-. His statement was recorded on 19. 12.1996 as PW- 1. According to him, the Collector Land Acquisition has not adequately assessed the market value of the property. He has got his building evaluated from PW-7 Jitender Kumar, Architect. He has assessed the value of the house at ! 46,687/- and after allowing 60% increase on account of rise in price index of labour and material etc. he has assessed the value of the house at ! 87,400/-. He has proved his report Ex.PW-7/J. The nature of the building was random rubble masonry, slate roofing, mud plaster on inner and outer walls. He has been paid ! 36,584/- on the basis of the assessment made by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. RW-3 K.K. Gupta has proved the report Ex.RZ. According to the District Judge if thrashing floor is excluded, as worked out by PW-7 Jitender Kumar, there is no much difference between the market value of the house of the claimant carried out by PW-7 Jitender Kumar, Architect and RW-3 K.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer. The District Judge has held that the possibility of the claimant’s having carried out additions and alterations in the buildings under acquisition after 5.3.1988/18.6.1988 could not be ruled out and they have got their property evaluated after the evaluation carried out by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. The statement of PW-7 could not be brushed aside in its entirety. It was required to be given wightage vis-à- vis the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. Cross-Objections Nos. 92 and 97 of 2002 22. According to the claimant Savir Dass, the market value of the buildings under acquisition was at ! 3,50,000/- and the value at the time of acquisition was ! 300/- per square feet. While appearing as PW- 1 on 10.10.1996, the claimant has not stated the market value of the building under acquisition. According to him, there was one single storeyed house with four rooms. There was one farm house (Dogri) and one store house. He has got the market value assessed from PW-9 Bachiter Singh, Architect. According to PW-9 Bachiter Singh, the market value of one building of the claimant was initially at ! 80,721/-, second building was at ! 1,42,858/- and third building was at ! 1,00,220/- and value after additions was assessed at ! 1,71,561/-, ! 3,16,707/- and ! 1,95,936/- respectively. He has got the market value assessed from PW-9 Bachiter Singh, Architect. According to PW-9 Bachiter Singh, the market value of one building of the claimant was initially at ! 80,721/-, second building was at ! 1,42,858/- and third building was at ! 1,00,220/- and value after additions was assessed at ! 1,71,561/-, ! 3,16,707/- and ! 1,95,936/- respectively. According to the learned District Judge, PW­9 Bachiter Singh has not prepared the drawing of any of the buildings after comparing the same with the evaluation reports and drawings prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer. According to him, PW-9 Bachiter Singh has assessed the market value of the building on the higher side. PW-9 has also allowed extra premium. According to the District Judge, PW-9 has not worked out depreciation of any of the buildings. According to him, all the buildings of the claimant have been constructed within ten years and depreciation deductible was 1/2% to 1%. According to the District Judge, RW-3 K.K. Gupta has correctly assessed the market value of the house vis-à-vis PW-9 Bachiter Singh. PW-9 is the valuer. He was valuer for Income Tax Department, P.S.I.D.C., Steel Authority of India Limited and Industrial Development Bank of India. According to the assessment made by RW-3, the claimant was entitled to ! 1,39,280.79 paise. He has proved his report. The report of PW-9 Bachiter Singh has been brushed aside without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons. Cross-Objections No. 104/2002 23. The claimant Narain Dass has claimed enhancement of the market value of the building under acquisition. He has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, the market value of the building was ! 3.00 Lakhs. He has got the building evaluated from PW-7 Jitender Kumar. PW-7 Jitender Kumar has proved Ex.PW-7/C. The building was made of R.R. Masonry, slate roofing, mud flooring, mud plaster inner and outer walls. He had assessed the value of the building initially at ! 97,945 and after additions, it came to ! Rs. 1,95,900/-. He has given the premium of 60%. According to the District Judge, the H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 has been applied and 60% increase on account of rise in price index of labour and material could not be allowed on 5.3.1988/18.6.1988. The claimant has been paid sum of Rs. 1,02,350.00 on the basis of the assessment made by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According to the District Judge, the H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 has been applied and 60% increase on account of rise in price index of labour and material could not be allowed on 5.3.1988/18.6.1988. The claimant has been paid sum of Rs. 1,02,350.00 on the basis of the assessment made by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According to the District Judge, RW-3 has carried out the assessment work of the building under acquisition with due care and caution. According to him, RW-3 has more than 30 years experience in the construction and evaluation of the buildings. The District Judge has out rightly rejected the report Ex.PW-7/C made by PW-7 Jitender Kumar Cross-objections Nos. 98 and 102 of 2002 24. According to the claimant Ram Dass, the market value of his shop and building was Rs. 1,50,000/-. He has not got his property evaluated from any expert. His statement was recorded on 10.10.1996. The compensation has been paid on the basis of assessment carried out by RW-3 K.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer, N.J.P.C. Cross-objections No. 463/2001. 25. According to the claimant Satya Devi, she has not been paid adequate compensation for the trees. Cross-objections No. 18/2002 26.According to the claimant Mothu Ram, the market value of the building was Rs. 300/- per square feet of the covered area. The market value of the building was Rs. 5.00 lakhs. He has appeared as PW- 1 on 13.3.1997. He has admitted that his building was measured in his presence by the N.J.P.C. He has not examined any expert in support of his claim. Learned District Judge has not permitted the report of Bachiter Singh to be taken on record rendered in land reference petition No. 13 1-R/4 of 1995/92, Ram Lal and another vs. H.P.S.E.B. According to the District Judge, Bachiter Singh has not authenticated and signed all the reports. Bachiter Singh has not worked out the depreciation cost of the building under acquisition. He has relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. Cross-objections No.464/2001 27.The claimant Thisu Ram has sought enhancement of compensation towards acquisition of trees. RFA No. 351/2001: 28. According to the claimant Bhupesh Kumar, the market value of his house was Rs. 3,50,000/-. He has appeared as PW- 1 on 19.12.1996. He has got the building evaluated from PW-9 Bachiter Singh. He has proved his report Ex. PW-9/H. He has assessed the value initially at Rs. RFA No. 351/2001: 28. According to the claimant Bhupesh Kumar, the market value of his house was Rs. 3,50,000/-. He has appeared as PW- 1 on 19.12.1996. He has got the building evaluated from PW-9 Bachiter Singh. He has proved his report Ex. PW-9/H. He has assessed the value initially at Rs. 1,47,375/- and after addition, it came to Rs. 3,12,455/-. He has been paid compensation of ! 1,19,609/- on the basis of the assessment made by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has added premium @ 78%. According to the District Judge, RW-3 has carried out the assessment work of the building with due care and caution. He has placed heavy reliance on the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta and has ignored the report furnished by PW-9 Bachiter Singh in its entirety. Cross-objections No. 166/2002 29. According to the claimant Chandu Lal, the market value of the buildings was ! 3,75,000/-. He has appeared as PW-1 on 18.12.1996. He has got his buildings evaluated from PW-9 Bachiter Singh. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has assessed the value of 1st building at Rs. 44,213, second building at Rs. 1,20,569/- and third building was assessed at ! 89,599/- initially and after additions, the same have been assessed at Rs. 96,549/-, Rs. 2,60,928/- and ! 1,68,294, respectively. He was given compensation of Rs. 41,224/- on the basis of report EX. RX/A, RY/A, RX/B and RY/B prepared by RW-3 K.K. Gupta. Learned District Judge has relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According to the District Judge, PW-9 Bachiter Singh has not stated the field number on which the building under acquisition of the claimant was situated. He has nowhere taken the assistance of the village Patwari. According to him, since there was wide variation in the assessment of the buildings of the claimant as carried out by RW-3 K.K. Gupta and PW-9 Bachiter Singh, the claimant was required to produce evidence of exact location of the buildings under acquisition. RFA No. 325/2001 30. According to the claimant Malti Devi, the market value of the building was ! 10.00 lakhs. She has examined PW- 1 Nand Lal. Nand Lal is her husband. According to PW- 1 Nand Lal, he has spent ! 5.00 lakhs towards construction of the building. The building was completed in the month of April, 1988. He has been paid ! 2,00,992/- on the basis of report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. 10.00 lakhs. She has examined PW- 1 Nand Lal. Nand Lal is her husband. According to PW- 1 Nand Lal, he has spent ! 5.00 lakhs towards construction of the building. The building was completed in the month of April, 1988. He has been paid ! 2,00,992/- on the basis of report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. He has examined PW-7 Jitender Kumar. He has proved his report Ex.PW-7/B. According to him, initially, the valuation was assessed at ! 1,66,934/- and after additions it came to ! 4,77,431/-. According to the District Judge, PW-7 Jitender Kumar was not proper person to assess the market value of the building. According to the District Judge, there could not be 120% increase. According to the District Judge, RW-3 has experience of 30 years in the construction and evaluation of the buildings. According to RW-3, the cost of the construction could not be ! 400/- per square feet. According to RW-3, H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987 were duly published before he carried out the assessment work of building under acquisition. The District Judge has relied upon the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta and has discarded the report of PW-7 Jitender Kumar. RFA No. 444/2001 31. According to the claimant Vidya Devi, the market value of the building was Rs. 3,90,000/-. She has appeared as PW- 1 on 19.12.1996. She has examined PW­11, Lalit Kumar. PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has proved his report Ex. PW- 11/A. He has assessed the value of the house at Rs. 45,033/- and after giving premium of 85%, the value was assessed at Rs. 1,10,268/-. The claimant has been paid Rs. 82,619/-, on the basis of report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. Cross-objections No. 94/2002 32. According to the claimant, Krishan Chand, the market value of the building was ! Rs. 300/- per square foot. The market value of the building was ! 2,50,000/-. He has examined PW- 1 Smt. Thakur Dassi. She is wife of the claimant. He has also examined PW- 11 Lalit Kumar. According to PW- 11 Lalit Kumar, the building was assessed at !1,02,099/- initially and after additions, it came to ! 1,97,750/-. According to the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta, the claimant has been paid ! 82,994/-. PW 11 Lalit Kumar has proved his report Ex. PW-1 1/E. According to the District Judge, PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has not taken into consideration depreciation. 1,97,750/-. According to the report of RW-3 K.K. Gupta, the claimant has been paid ! 82,994/-. PW 11 Lalit Kumar has proved his report Ex. PW-1 1/E. According to the District Judge, PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has not taken into consideration depreciation. District Judge has relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta, vis-à- vis PW- 11 Lalit Kumar. RFA No. 282/2001 and Cross-objections No. 96/2002. 33. According to the claimant Sarla Devi, since the property is abutting the National Highway-22, the compensation should be on the higher side. She has relied upon the statement of her brother, PW- 1, Nanak Chand, RW- 1 Shankar Dass and RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According to RW- 1 Shankar Dass and RW-3 K.K. Gupta, the land abutting the National Highway was also acquired. RFA No. 352/2001. 34. The claimant Shyam Lal has claimed the market value of the building under acquisition at ! 4,50,000/-. He has appeared as PW-1 on 17.12.1996. He has got the building evaluated from PW-7 Jitender Kumar. He has proved his report Ex. PW-7/H. According to him, initially the value of the building was assessed at ! 1,26,500/- and after making additions, it came to ! 2,34,500/-. He has been paid ! 1,39,370/- on the basis of the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. According, to the District Judge, the evidence of PW-7 Jitender Kumar could not be taken into consideration since he was Architect and not a Civil Engineer. The District Judge has relied upon the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta. RFA No. 286/2001 alongwith Cross-objections No. 465/2001 35. According to the claimant, Jagdish Chand, compensation was to be enhanced taking into consideration that his land was situated on the National Highway-22. All the Regular First Appeals filed by the acquiring corporation were compromised except a few Regular First Appeals, including RFA No. 286/2001. The claimant has appeared as PW- 1. Cross-objections No. 199/2002 36. According to Satya Devi, the value of the building was ! 1,25,000/-. She has examined PW-7 Jitender Kumar. He has proved his report Ex. PW-7/F. The value of the building was initially assessed at ! 63,053/- and after making additions, it came to Rs.1,19,000/-. He has been paid ! 84,023/- as per the report of the RW-3, K.K. Gupta, Ex. R/C. The District Judge has relied upon the statement of RW-3, K.K. Gupta. He has proved his report Ex. PW-7/F. The value of the building was initially assessed at ! 63,053/- and after making additions, it came to Rs.1,19,000/-. He has been paid ! 84,023/- as per the report of the RW-3, K.K. Gupta, Ex. R/C. The District Judge has relied upon the statement of RW-3, K.K. Gupta. According to the District Judge, there was no reason for disbelieving the statement made by RW-3 K.K. Gupta, being a responsible person. 37. The claimants in RFA No. 46/2002, RFA No. 47/2002,Cross-objections No. 461/2001, RFA No. 453/2001, RFA No. 349/2001, Cross-objections No. 200/2002, RFA No. 344/2001, RFA No. 15/2002, Cross- objections No. 95/2002, Cross-objections No. 462/2002, Cross-objections No. 93 / 2002, Cross-objections No.92/2002, Cross-objections No. 97/2002, Cross- objections No. 104/2002, Cross-objections 98/2002, Cross-objections No. 463/2001, Cross-objections No. 18/2002, Cross-objections No. 464/2001, RFA No. 325/2001, Cross-objections No. 94/2002 and Cross- objections No. 199/2002, have also sought enhancement of compensation towards acquisition of their fruit-bearing /non fruit-bearing trees. The District Judge has discussed this issue in para 21 of the award dated 30.6.2001. According to the claimants, though they have been paid compensation according to Harbans Singh formula, but it was based on price index of 1966. According to the claimants, there was steep increase in the price index after 1966. According to the District Judge, the claimants could not be allowed enhanced compensation for fruit- bearing and non-fruit bearing trees. According to him, the compensation for land and fruit-bearing trees/non-fruit bearing trees was required to be determined with multiplier of 8 years to the annual yield per bigha. According to him, the claimants have not produced any evidence in respect of annual yield. 38. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala has put strong reliance on para 28.9 of Chapter 28 read with Appendix-C in support of his argument of the Himachal Pradesh Land Record Manual. He has also referred to Standing Order No.28 contained in the book “Standing Order of Financial Commissioners of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh” published by Sh. K.N. Kashyap (1992 Edition). 39. In RFA No. 282/2001, C.O. No. 96/2002, RFA No. 286/2001 and RFA No. 465/2001, the claimants have sought higher compensation for the land abutting National Highway-22. Majority of the Regular First Appeals filed by the corporations have been compromised except RFA Nos.286/2001 and 288/2001, which are pending alongwith C.O. Nos. 96/2002 and 465/2001. According to Mr. 39. In RFA No. 282/2001, C.O. No. 96/2002, RFA No. 286/2001 and RFA No. 465/2001, the claimants have sought higher compensation for the land abutting National Highway-22. Majority of the Regular First Appeals filed by the corporations have been compromised except RFA Nos.286/2001 and 288/2001, which are pending alongwith C.O. Nos. 96/2002 and 465/2001. According to Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation since their land is abutting to National Highway-22. According to him, the value of the land abutting National Highway-22 is always on the higher side. 40.The claimants have primarily relied upon the statements of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, W-9, Bachiter Singh, PW- 11 Lalit Kumar and PW- 12 Chaman Lal Gupta.The respondents have relied upon the statements of RW-2 K.K. Singta and RW-3 K.K. Gupta. 41. PW-7, Jitender Kumar, has testified that he was registered Architect. He was doing valuation work of Bank of India, UCO Bank and Punjab National Bank. He possesses degree of Architecture. He has placed the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW-7/A. he has also placed on record copy of registration certificate. He has inspected the spot at Jhakri 5-6 years back. He has proved the detailed estimates of the buildings which were acquired. This estimate was prepared in accordance with the HPPWD Schedule of Rates of 1987. However, the valuation was made in the year 1988. He has not gone through the assessment report prepared by Public Works Department authorities regarding valuation of the cost of the house. He has prepared the report in the year 1991 qua Shri Narain Dass, Smt. Krishana Devi, Smt Sumitra Devi, Smt. Satya Devi, Shri Daulat Ram Negi, Shri Shyam Lal and Shri Sita Ram. He has proved his report Ex. PW-7/C to Ex.PW-7/H and Ex. PW-7/J. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he did not remember when he visited the spot. According to him, only his draughtsman was accompanying him and none else. He has also admitted that he has not included depreciation value in the report. The foundation of the houses according to him was 60-90 cms. The wood used in the house has been shown by him as Deodar 1st Class and Kail species. He has denied the suggestion that class III wood was used for the construction of the house. He has denied the suggestion that the houses were Kucha. 42. The foundation of the houses according to him was 60-90 cms. The wood used in the house has been shown by him as Deodar 1st Class and Kail species. He has denied the suggestion that class III wood was used for the construction of the house. He has denied the suggestion that the houses were Kucha. 42. PW-8, Tulsi Ram, has proved the record pertaining to broad tree species Ex.PW-8/A. He has admitted that Ex.PW-8/A pertained to sale of trees and not purchase of trees. 43. PW-9 Bachiter Singh has testified that he was an Architect. He was registered valuer of Income Tax Department. His registration number was ICC/CHD/Teet II/1075. He had been working as valuer in PSIDC, Steel Authority of India Limited and Industrial Development Bank of India. He has undertaken five years degree course from Chandigarh College. He has evaluated the building as per the market rates of 1988 and also as per the H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987. The maps of the buildings were prepared by him on the spot. The estimates of the buildings pertaining to Lambru Ram, Charan Dass, Gauri Saran, Sabir Dass, Chandu Lal, Baldev Kamal, Krishan Dass, Tara Chand, Bhupesh Kumar, Sarmi Devi and Shananu Ram were prepared by him vide Ex.PW-9/A to A-1 to Ex.PW-9/J. The reports were signed by him. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the houses evaluated by him were Pucca houses. The average depth of the foundations of these houses was two feet. He has admitted that while calculating the value of the house, depreciation @ 1/2% to 1% is deductible in the first ten years, however, it dependents on the type of material used in the construction. He has also deposed that the wood used in the building was Deodar and Kail species. He has inspected the spot in the year 1988-1989. 44. PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has deposed that he was qualified Engineer. He has made the evaluation of buildings 5-6 years ago. He made the valuation as per HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987. He has also deposed that the wood used in the building was Deodar and Kail species. He has inspected the spot in the year 1988-1989. 44. PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has deposed that he was qualified Engineer. He has made the evaluation of buildings 5-6 years ago. He made the valuation as per HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987. He has evaluated the properties of Vidya Devi wife of Uma Nand on the basis of H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987 vide Ex.PW-1 1/A. He has undertaken the valuation of the buildings of Lachhu Ram son of Narayan Dutt vide Ex.PW-1 1/B and Krishan Chand vide Ex.PW- 11 /E. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the assessment reports made by the Engineers. He has denied the suggestion that he has prepared the reports on the basis of the instructions of the claimants. 45.RW-2 K.K. Singta has deposed that he was posted as Junior Engineer (Civil) since 1989. He has got vast experience of preparing estimates of the buildings since 1989. He has prepared the estimates of the building acquired by the N.J.P.C. He has prepared about 40-50 estimates till date. He has brought the original building estimates pertaining to Lumbru Ram and others. He has assessed the value of the houses on the basis of the H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987. The material of the structures was returned to the owner after deducting the depreciation value @ 5%. He has evaluated the houses of Lumbru Ram at ! 3,38,516/-, Sh. Daulat Ram at ! 1,85,947/-, Smt. Satya Devi at ! 84,023/-, Chandu Lal at ! 41,224/-, Ram Dass at ! 49,717/-, Kripal Singh at ! 5 1,392/-, Tara Chand at ! 89,706/-, Smt. Pyarumani at ! 34,637/-, Narayan Dass at ! 1,02,350/-, Lachhu Ram at ! 43,236/-, Sabir Dass at ! 3,909/- + 40,093/- and 6,174/, Bhupesh Kumar at ! 119069/- and Mothu at ! 82,742/- vide Ex.RA, RB, RC, RD, RE, RF, RG, RH, RJ, RK, RL, RM and RN. In his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that he did not visit the spot before preparing these estimates. He could not say whether the measurement done on the spot was correct. He has admitted that there were certain cuttings which were not initialed. Since he was not associated in any way during preparation of the estimates, he could not make any comment personally. He could not say whether the measurement done on the spot was correct. He has admitted that there were certain cuttings which were not initialed. Since he was not associated in any way during preparation of the estimates, he could not make any comment personally. He has also deposed that none of the estimates indicate that these were prepared on the basis of the HPPWD Schedule of rates of 1987. He could not say how much time was consumed at the time of preparation and finalization as per schedule of rates of 1987. He has also admitted that the prevailing rates were applied but they did not bear any premium. He was not in a position to depose whether new buildings of Lumbru Ram, Baldev, Kamal etc. were acquired. He has admitted that the depreciation value of the buildings has been deducted. He did not know who made the measurement. 46. RW-3 is Krishan Kumar Gupta. He has obtained degree in Civil Engineering from Rurki University in 1959. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in H.P.S.E.B in the year 1971. He was on deputation with N.J.P.C. as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from January, 1981 onwards. He has inspected the building in question and assessed its market value, as per estimates Ex. RX/A, RX/B, RX/C and Ex. RX/D. Drawings of these buildings are Ex.RZ. He has seen the original documents. The documents Ex. RX/A, RX/B, RX/C and Ex. RY are the photocopies of the original documents. He has signed these documents. The details of the measurements are Ex. RY and site plan Ex. RZ. According to him, the market value of the structures in question was Rs. 3,38,5 16.00. Cuttings have been duly verified by him. He has deducted 5% of the cost of the material of the structure given to the claimants. According to him, in case of Lumbru Ram, he has assessed the cost of one structure at Rs. 3,217/-. It was a small structure indicated in the drawing. The other structure of Lumbru Ram was assessed at ! 3,054/-. The first structure was marked as mark ‘Y’. The drawing of all the four buildings was on single sheet Ex.RZ. He has denied the suggestion that neither he has made the assessment nor signed the documents. Volunteered that he shall have to see each and every document. The other structure of Lumbru Ram was assessed at ! 3,054/-. The first structure was marked as mark ‘Y’. The drawing of all the four buildings was on single sheet Ex.RZ. He has denied the suggestion that neither he has made the assessment nor signed the documents. Volunteered that he shall have to see each and every document. He has denied the suggestion that the details of the items and floor area could not be worked out. According to him, the floor area in square meters has not been shown. He has checked and after tallying the result signed each and every document. He has applied H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987. He has admitted that he has not used the expression “1987 H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates” while preparing the estimate. He has noted down that he has applied H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 in the preface and history of the case. However, history sheet was not available. According to him, it must be in the original record with the LA.O. He could not trace the history sheet in the court file. He has denied the suggestion that Jhakri is 150 KMs from Shimla. He has admitted that steel, cement, iron and bricks are brought to Jhakri from a distance of about 300 KMs. He has admitted that he has constructed his house and the cost thereof was Rs. 400/- per square feet. He has admitted that the schedule rates of wages in 1987 were based on the minimum rates approved by the Government. He did not know the exact location of the house of claimant Lachhu Ram. He has admitted that in some of the cases the land has been acquired abutting National Highway-22. He did not know if the house of Lachhu Ram was situate in Khasra No. 932 or not. He could not say about Ex.PAA jamabandi, Ex.PBB field map and Ex. PCC jamabandi of various khasra numbers. He has admitted that in the preface it was recorded that the rates were of 1986. However, volunteered that in the preface, cost index has been stated. According to him, as per H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987, applicable at that time, the rate of mason was from ! 15/- to ! 19/- per day. Sanitary and electrical items have been excluded from H.P.W.D. Schedule of Rate of 1987 and separate schedule has been prepared for these items. According to him, as per H.P.P.W.D. schedule of rates of 1987, applicable at that time, the rate of mason was from ! 15/- to ! 19/- per day. Sanitary and electrical items have been excluded from H.P.W.D. Schedule of Rate of 1987 and separate schedule has been prepared for these items. He has also admitted that in some cases he has assessed the market value of the structures on the basis of sample building. He volunteered that he has taken into consideration maximum cost permissible under the Schedule of the few sample buildings and thereafter the cost has been worked out. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the structures of the claimants and prepared the estimates while sitting in office at Jhakri. He has admitted that in case of Sabir Dass, the estimate has been prepared on the basis of sample building. Similarly, he has admitted that in cases of Sita Ram, Banarsi Dass and Krishna Devi, the estimates have been prepared on the basis of the sample building. He did not know what type of material was used in the buildings and whether there were grills in the buildings estimates whereof has been prepared on the basis of sample buildings. In case of Krishna Devi, one estimate has been prepared by him on the basis of sample building and the other estimate has been prepared after actual measurement. He has denied the suggestion that the registered valuer has applied H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 in all the items as per estimate Ex.PEE. Volunteered that some of the items have not been assessed keeping in view H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987. He has categorically admitted that registered valuer is authorized to assess the value of the buildings. He did not know whether M/s. Sharma and Associates and Grover have prepared estimates on similar lines on which he has prepared estimates. He has not applied the increase, if any, in the market rate of 1988 on the Schedule of rates of 1987. Volunteered that there was no notification for allowing premium in 1988 over Schedule of Rates of 1987. He has denied the suggestion that while demolishing the building steel and bricks cannot be salvaged. 47. PW-7 Jitender Kumar is a registered Architect. He is valuer for Bank of India, UCO Bank and Punjab National Bank. He has placed on record his registration certificate. He has denied the suggestion that while demolishing the building steel and bricks cannot be salvaged. 47. PW-7 Jitender Kumar is a registered Architect. He is valuer for Bank of India, UCO Bank and Punjab National Bank. He has placed on record his registration certificate. According to him, he has applied the H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of Rates of 1987 after visiting the spot. PW-9 Bachiter Singh is also an Architect. He is registered valuer of Income Tax Department. He has placed on record registration number ICC/CHD/Teet­II/1075. He is working as valuer for P.S.I.D.C., Steel Authority of India Limited and Industrial Development Bank of India. According to him, the valuation has been made according to the market rate of 1988 and also as per the H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of Rates of 1987. He has prepared the maps on the spot. He has also deposed that the depreciation of the items is to be deducted @ 1/2% - 1% in the first ten years. 48. PW- 11 Lalit Kumar is also qualified Engineer. He has visited the spot. He has made assessment on the basis of H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987. 49. PW-12 Chaman Lal Gupta has deposed that the labour rates are paid on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State Government. According to him, the actual cost of the building constructed in the year 1988 shall be more than the estimate prepared as per the Schedule of rates. According to him, the premium is paid by the Department on such rates so that the market rate/cost is arrived at. According to him, the premium is also granted as per the rise in the cost of material and labour and extra carriage. He has also admitted that in his Division, H.P.P.W.D. had granted 41% to 65% premium on 1987 Schedule of building constructed in September, 1988, as per record. According to him, there was separate Schedule for water supply and electric items. 50. RW-2 K.K. Singta has categorically admitted that he has not visited the spot. He was not associated in any way during the preparation of the estimates. It was necessary for him to visit the spot and thereafter evaluate the building. He was not sure whether the measurement carried out on the spot was correct or not. 50. RW-2 K.K. Singta has categorically admitted that he has not visited the spot. He was not associated in any way during the preparation of the estimates. It was necessary for him to visit the spot and thereafter evaluate the building. He was not sure whether the measurement carried out on the spot was correct or not. RW-3 K.K. Gupta has also admitted that he has prepared the estimates on the basis of sample building in number of cases. He was supposed to visit the spot and prepare the estimates after inspecting the premises himself. He has admitted that the house which he has constructed in the year 1994, its cost was ! 400/- per square foot. He has admitted that he has not used the expression “1987 H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates” while preparing the estimate. According to him, he has noted down that he has applied H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 in the preface and history sheet of the case. However, history sheet was not available. According to him, it must be in the original record with the L.A.O. He could not trace the history sheet in the court file. He has admitted that he has taken into consideration the maximum cost permissible under the Schedule of the few buildings sample cost whereof has been worked out. Though he has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the spot, but it is evident that while preparing the estimates, sample buildings have been taken into consideration. The District Judge has discarded the statements of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, PW-9 Bachiter Singh and PW- 11 Lalit Kumar. PW-7 Jitender Kumar and PW-9 Bachiter Singh are registered valuers. Statements of the experts could not be discarded only on the ground that they were Architects and not Civil Engineers. PW- 11 was also Engineer and valuer. They have visited the spot. PW- 12 Chaman Lal Gupta has also deposed that the actual cost of the building structure in the year 1988 shall be more than the estimates prepared as per the schedule of rates. According to him, the premium is also paid by the Department on schedule of rates so that the market value/cost is arrived at. He has categorically deposed that his Department, i.e. H.P.P.W.D. was paying premium from 41 % to 65% on Schedule of rates of 1987. According to him, the premium is also paid by the Department on schedule of rates so that the market value/cost is arrived at. He has categorically deposed that his Department, i.e. H.P.P.W.D. was paying premium from 41 % to 65% on Schedule of rates of 1987. The District Judge instead of relying upon the statement of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, PW-9 Bachiter Singh and PW- 11 Lalit Kumar has relied upon the statements of RW-2 K.K. Singta, who has not even visited the spot. He has also given undue credence to the statement of RW-3, who instead of visiting the spot has prepared the estimates on the basis of sample building in number of cases. 51. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has also brought to the notice of the Court Ex. PXX whereby the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta was recorded in case No. 143 of 1995/1992, titled Daulat Ram vs. L.A.C. Mr. K.K. Gupta while appearing in this case has admitted that he has prepared the estimates while sitting in the office. 52. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Kerala vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 have held that while determining compensation payable in respect of land with buildings, compensation cannot be determined by assessing the value of the land and the “break-up value” of the buildings separately. The land and the buildings constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. Their Lordships have further held that when the property sold is land with building the method which is generally resorted to the determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. Two questions were urged in support of the appeal: (1) that the Receiver having accepted the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent could claim compensation only for the right which he had in the land and the buildings and the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was in the circumstances the only appropriate method; and (2) that the rate of capitalization was unduly high. In our judgment, there is no force in either of the contentions. In our judgment, there is no force in either of the contentions. When land - which expression includes by S. 3 (a) of the Act benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or fastened to anything attached to the earth - is notified for acquisition, it is notified as a single unit whatever may be the interests which the owners thereof may have therein. The purpose of acquisition is to acquire all interests which clog the right of the Government to full ownership of the land, i. e. when land is notified for acquisition, the Government expresses its desire to acquire all outstanding interests collectively. That is clear from the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. Under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector is required to enquire into the objections raised by the persons interested in the land and into the value of the lard at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-s. (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, and then to make an award determining-(i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. By the compulsory acquisition of land, all outstanding interests not vested in the Government are extinguished. It is therefore the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to determine in the first instance compensation which is to be paid for extinction of those interests, and then to apportion the compensation among the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. The Subordinate Judge had also, when a reference was made to him to assess the value of the unit and then to apportion the compensation among persons entitled thereto. The rule could not be departed from merely because the Receiver in whom the Jenmi rights in T. S. No. 298/2 were vested failed to raise an objection to the quantum of compensation awarded to him. Again the respondent was the holder of kanam rights in the land, and the buildings on the land belonged to him. The rule could not be departed from merely because the Receiver in whom the Jenmi rights in T. S. No. 298/2 were vested failed to raise an objection to the quantum of compensation awarded to him. Again the respondent was the holder of kanam rights in the land, and the buildings on the land belonged to him. The respondent being Kanamdar, he had an interest in T. S. No. 298/2, and as Kanamdar the respondent was entitled to apportionment of compensation even in respect of the land. 6. As observed by the Judicial Committee in Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, 66 Ind App 104 at p. 114 = (AIR 1939 PC 98 at p. 102) : “There is not in general any market for land in the sense in which one speaks of a market for shares or a market for sugar or any like commodity. The value of any such article at any particular time can readily be ascertained by the prices being obtained for similar articles in the market. In the case of land, its value in general can also be measured by a consideration “of the prices that have obtained in the past for land of similar quality and in similar positions,” and this is what must be meant in general by ‘the market value’ in Section23.” An instance of a sale which is proximate in time to the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land similarly situate and with similar advantages and which is proved to be a transaction between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser would form a reliable guide for determining the market value. The value which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from a willing purchaser in respect of a house generally depends upon a variety of circumstances including the nature of the construction, its age, situation, the amenities available its special advantages and a host of other circumstances. When the property sold is land with building, it is often difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands sale buildings proximate in time to the date of the notification under Section 4. When the property sold is land with building, it is often difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands sale buildings proximate in time to the date of the notification under Section 4. Therefore the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes, is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings. 8. It cannot be laid down as a general rule applicable to all situations and circumstances that a multiple approximately equal to the return from gilt-edged securities prevailing at the relevant time forms an adequate basis for finding out the market value of the land. But in this case the Trial Court and the High Court were of the view that a multiple based on a return from the gilt - edged securities was the approximate multiple for determining the value of the property under acquisition, and no ground has been suggested for not accepting the basis and the rate of capitalization adopted by them. It is relevant to note that the same multiple which has been adopted in other cases relating to lands and buildings acquired under the same notification under which the land of the respondent was acquired has not been challenged by the State.” 53. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 have held that the land and building thereon constitute one unit. Land is one kind of property, land and building together constitute an altogether different kind of property. They must be valued as one unit. But where the property comprises extensive land and the structures thereon do not indicate a realization of the full developmental potential of the land, it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the land with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method, the building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. We may first proceed to estimate the prime cost of the building. The measurements set out in Ext. 1 are not disputed. If Ext. In this method, the building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. We may first proceed to estimate the prime cost of the building. The measurements set out in Ext. 1 are not disputed. If Ext. 1 is taken as the starting point for the estimate of cost of replacement as on 4-7-1959; the depreciation of 20% allowed in Ext. 1 has to be added back and, further, some deduction towards the possible escalation of costs of construction between the date of preliminary notification and of the period of validity of the rates adopted in Ext. 1 has to be made. On this basis, the cost of replacement could be estimated at about Rs. 4 lakhs. This works out to Rs. 16 per sq.ft. on the average. Even in respect of 1959, this figure may not be much, having regard to the quality of the construction. From this sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, depreciation for the past life of 60 years of building would have to be deducted. Depreciation depends upon and is deduced from factors such as the cost of the construction; the expected life-span; its salvage- value realisable at the end of the period of utility etc. Rate of depreciation is generally, the prime-cost less salvage-value divided by the life-span. These, of course, are matters of evidence. In the present case, if we make a rough and ready estimate of the salvage-value at say, 10% of the cost and estimate the period of utility or life-span of the building at, say, 90 years, the depreciation which is the annual loss of value due to physical wear and tear works out to about Rs. 4000 per year or roughly 1%. Without going to the finer details of the calculation of the depreciation on the progressive written down values, we think an estimate of 50% of the cost of the building may, again on a rough and ready basis, be deducted towards depreciation. The market value of the building as on the date of the preliminary notification could accordingly be fixed at Rs. 2,00,000. Accordingly, the compensation for the buildings and structures is enhanced from Rs. 57,660/- to Rs. 2,00,000, point (b) is held and answered accordingly.” 54. The market value of the building as on the date of the preliminary notification could accordingly be fixed at Rs. 2,00,000. Accordingly, the compensation for the buildings and structures is enhanced from Rs. 57,660/- to Rs. 2,00,000, point (b) is held and answered accordingly.” 54. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattan Kumar Tandon and others vs. State of U.P. (1997) 2 SCC 161 have held that the claimant is not entitled to assessment of value of land and the building separately and compensation on both. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. The next question is: as to what would be the value of the building to which the appellants are entitled to? It is well settled law that when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. They are entitled to the compensation of either of the two methods but not both. If the building is assessed, it is settled law that the measure of assessment be based on either the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. In this case, since the land is separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. However, since State has not come in appeal, we need not go into the legality of the award of the Additional District Judge and of the High Court in that behalf. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to go into that question and we confirm of the compensation in respect of building at Rs. 8,33,000/- and odd.” 55. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus Mandal and others vs. State of Assam and another, (1999) 6 SCC 589 have held that where the house is standing on the acquired land, such land cannot be acquired without the house and the compensation is required to be paid for the house. Their Lordships have held as under: “8. It appears to us that the High Court fell into a basic error in not awarding compensation for the houses on the ground that since land had been acquired, it is only compensation for removal of houses standing thereon, which could have been granted because houses had not been acquired. That is not a correct approach. It appears to us that the High Court fell into a basic error in not awarding compensation for the houses on the ground that since land had been acquired, it is only compensation for removal of houses standing thereon, which could have been granted because houses had not been acquired. That is not a correct approach. The compensation was required to be paid for the houses which were standing on that land. The land could not have been acquired without the houses standing thereon. The Reference Court had rightly awarded compensation for the houses. The order of the High Court on this account suffers from apparent error. Insofar as the reduction in the rate for land from Rs. 36,600/- as awarded by the Reference Court to Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha by the High Court is concerned, we are not persuaded to disagree because we have not found any error to have been committed by the High Court in that behalf. The High Court has not adverted to the compensation on account of Zirut separately, though compensation on that account had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Reference Court. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the material on record, more particularly the evidence of the expert who had valued the houses belonging to the appellants, we are of the opinion that while the appellants are entitled to compensation for land @ 20,000/- per Bigha, the appellants are also entitled to compensation towards cost of houses. The cost of houses was calculated by the Reference Court, on the basis of expert evidence, at Rupees 1,88,000/-. Taking into account proper calculations, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 1,70,000/- towards cost of houses and not Rs. 1,88,000/-. Since, we are allowing the cost of houses, the question of grant of damages and compensation of Rs. 15,087/- for removal of houses does not arise. The order to that extent is set aside. Besides, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for Zirut. 1,70,000/- towards cost of houses and not Rs. 1,88,000/-. Since, we are allowing the cost of houses, the question of grant of damages and compensation of Rs. 15,087/- for removal of houses does not arise. The order to that extent is set aside. Besides, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for Zirut. So far as interest is concerned, the interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be so calculated as to take into account the amount already deposited by the State in the Executing Court under orders of the High Court, which amount was allowed to be withdrawn and has actually been withdrawn by the appellants. The interest shall, therefore, be calculated only on the differential amount for the remaining period from the date of possession of the land by the Collector i.e. 7-3-1988. The appellants shall be entitled to Solatium at the rate of 30%.” 56. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, (2001) 9 SCC 584 have held that two hectares cannot be said to be a small piece of land. 57. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through LRs and others vs. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 that since there was no capitalization of the value of the land and the structures on it, separate compensation is payable for land, tube well and structure. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Next submission of learned senior counsel is that the claimants were entitled to separate compensation for the Tube Well as well as for the structure standing on the land and the High Court committed error while denying compensation for the above items, although the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation for those items. We find substance in the argument. However, learned counsel appearing for the Parishad argued that the claimants were not entitled to compensation for value of land and building separately and for that purpose cited a decision of this Court in Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in 1997(2) SCC 161 . We find that the said decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalisation of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given separate compensation for land and building. v. State of U.P. reported in 1997(2) SCC 161 . We find that the said decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalisation of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given separate compensation for land and building. Here we find that there was no capitalisation of value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award. On the other hand, Land Acquisition Officer has given compensation separately for the land, building and Tube Well. In that view of the matter claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, Tube Well and structure.” 58. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another, (2004) 10 SCC 745 have held that the land and building should be valued as one unit, but there is no hard and fast rule in this regard. Their Lordships have further held that they can be separately assessed if large portion of land is lying vacant and is capable of better use. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. A question which arises here is as to what method for determining the value of the property should be adopted when the land is comprised of buildings, trees or some other additions of like nature. In Principles and Practice of Valuation by J. A. Parks (published by Eastern Law House, 1998 Edn.) the following paragraph on page 332 illustrates the different aspects of the problem : “Land with buildings is viewed in a different perspective than bare land as such. Land and buildings once married become one unit, and neither land nor building can thereafter be valued separately. A building once erected on or married to the site, as it is technically often termed, takes unto itself a value which may be either greater or less than the cost of erection depending upon the market situation. If the building properly and economically develops the land, the total value of the complete entity may be worth more than the sum of the individual values. In such cases, the excess of the com­posite value over the sum of the individual values is ascribable as the builder’s profit. But there may also be instances to the contrary. It is generally impossible to arrive at the true value of the whole by addition of the parts.” 12. In such cases, the excess of the com­posite value over the sum of the individual values is ascribable as the builder’s profit. But there may also be instances to the contrary. It is generally impossible to arrive at the true value of the whole by addition of the parts.” 12. In Abdullah Jan Mohammad Ganjee v. The State of Bihar, 1967 (1) SCWR 214, it was observed that a building standing on the land and the land on which it stands may not for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, ordinarily be regarded as separate units capable of being separately valued and the Reference Court in the normal course should have valued the land and building as composite property by the evi­dence furnished by the value of similar and comparable properties in the neighbourhood or by capitalisation of rent or other income received out of the property. 13. This principle was reiterated in State of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 , wherein it was held as under: “In determining compensation payable in respect of land with buildings, compensation cannot be determined by assessing the value of the land and the “break-up value” of the buildings separately. The land and the building constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. 14. In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector 1994 (6) SCC 456 , it was held that where there are irrigation wells in the land, estimated construction cost of the wells cannot be separately assessed apart from assessment of market value of the land and the value of the land has to be assessed having regard to the availability of irrigation facility on the land as a prime factor. This view has been reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, 1996 (6) SCC 197 and State of Bihar v. Ratanlal Sahu, 1996 (10) SCC 635 . This view has been reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, 1996 (6) SCC 197 and State of Bihar v. Ratanlal Sahu, 1996 (10) SCC 635 . But there is no hard and fast rule that land and building must be valued as one unit They can be separately assessed if the large portion of the land is lying vacant and is capable of better use as stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 and it will be useful to extract the relevant part of para 8 of the reports: “Usually land and building thereon constitute one unit. Land is one kind of property, land and building together constitute an altogether different kind of property. They must be valued as one unit. But where, however, the property comprises extensive land and the structures thereon do not indicate a realisation of the full developmental potential of the land, it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the land with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method, building value is estimated on the basis of the prime-cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is generally, arrived at by dividing the cost of construction (less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility) by the number of years of utility of the building. The factors that prolong the life and utility of the building, such as good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depre­ciation.” 59. What emerges from the judgments cited hereinabove, i.e. AIR 1988 SC 943 , 1999 (6) SCC 589 and (2004) 10 SCC 745 that the land and building should be valued as one unit, but there is no hard and fast rule in this regard. In the instant case, besides the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Standing Order 28 has also been relied upon by the appellants the manner in which the compensation is to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 60. In the instant case, besides the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Standing Order 28 has also been relied upon by the appellants the manner in which the compensation is to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 60. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal versus Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 have laid down the guidelines the manner in which the houses is to be evaluated. Their Lordships have held that the building is to be evaluated on the basis of prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is, generally, arrived at by dividing the cost of construction less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility by the number of years of utility of the building. The factors that prolong the life and utility of the building, such as good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depreciation. 61. It has come in the statement of RW-2 that certain items were not calculated in the H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987. The valuers have assessed the value of the building and thereafter they have made additions taking into consideration the carriage for cement head load from road head to site, electricity installation, water supply, extra for construction in rural area etc. The H.P.P.W.D. Schedule of rates of 1987 have been applied though the notification under section 4 has been issued on 5.3.1988 and published in the official gazette on 18.6.1988. The claimants were entitled to replacement cost as held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the premium given by the valuers is on the very higher side. It could not be more than 30%. The learned District Judge has over looked the increase in price index of the labour and material, i.e. steel, bricks, cement etc. and the cost of the new plot. It has also come in the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta that the material was to be brought from a distance of 300 KMs. It could not be more than 30%. The learned District Judge has over looked the increase in price index of the labour and material, i.e. steel, bricks, cement etc. and the cost of the new plot. It has also come in the statement of RW-3 K.K. Gupta that the material was to be brought from a distance of 300 KMs. In normal circumstances the matter ought to have been remanded back to the reference court to determine the value of the house on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, however, taking into consideration that the claimants are litigating for more than two decades, the Court has decided to increase the compensation of the buildings by 30% on the basis of the statements/valuation reports of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, PW-9 Bachiter Singh, PW- 11 Lalit Kumar and PW- 12 Chaman Lal Gupta and also on the basis of replacement cost less depreciation. The Schedule of rates of 1987 could not be the only indica for determining the replacement cost. The premium was required to be paid taking into consideration the inflation towards labour and material. It has also come in the statements of the official witnesses that no premium was paid on the Schedule of rates of 1987. Trees 62. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Niranjan Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (1979) 3 SCC 758 have held that the landlord is not entitled to value of the trees separately from the land. Their Lordships have held as under: “2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the High Court was in error in refusing to award compensation to the appellants for the value of the trees standing in the forest, since the land has to be valued separately from the trees. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the definition of ‘land’ in Section 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and on the provisions of Sec. 23 (1), firstly and secondly of the same Act. Having considered this contention in the light of these provisions and in the context of the various facts to which we will presently advert, it seems to us difficult to uphold it. 4. Having considered this contention in the light of these provisions and in the context of the various facts to which we will presently advert, it seems to us difficult to uphold it. 4. The evidence in the case, particularly that furnished by the various agreements between the parties, shows that the trees which stood on the land were planted by the Government itself in pursuance of its scheme of afforestation of the lands and that the entire income of the trees was appropriated by the Government. There is no evidence to show that any trees were planted by the appellants and indeed there is hardly any reliable evidence to show that the appellants were receiving any particular income by selling the wood or timber of the felled trees. In fact, there is not even credible evidence to show that the appellants were receiving any regular income by letting out the land or any part of it for grazing purposes. Even assuming therefore, for the sake of argument, that the appellants would be entitled not only to the value of the land but to the value of the trees standing thereon also, the High Court was justified in deleting from the award the compensation granted by the District Court for value of the trees. 5. The evidence of Nawab Singh, DW 1, who retired as Deputy Ranger in 1949 shows that the trees which were standing on the land on the date of acquisition were all planted by the Government from 1918. It is significant that Prag Narain, P. W. 11, who was the Mukhtiar-i-am of the appellants admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen any trees being planted on any part of the disputed forest by or on behalf of the appellants. This evidence in our opinion furnishes a complete answer to the appellants’ contention that since trees belonged to them, they were entitled to be compensated for their Acquisition.” 63. In AIR 1988 SC 943 (supra), the Apex Court has held that horticulture value of the tree growth cannot be independently valued, though timber value or salvage value to be taken into account. The Apex Court has held as under: “24. Accordingly, the compensation for the buildings and structures is enhanced from Rs. 57,660/- to Rs. 2,00,000, point (b) is held and answered accordingly. Re : Contention (c) : 25. The Apex Court has held as under: “24. Accordingly, the compensation for the buildings and structures is enhanced from Rs. 57,660/- to Rs. 2,00,000, point (b) is held and answered accordingly. Re : Contention (c) : 25. So far as the tree-growth is concerned, it is trite proposition that where land is valued with reference to its potentiality for building purposes on the basis of prices fetched by small sites in a hypothetical lay-out, the tree-growth on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticultural value or with reference to the value of the yield. But this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber-value or the salvage value of the tree-growth after providing for the cost of cutting and removing. The evidence shows that there were 471 fruit bearing trees and plants : 13 timber trees and 12 Bamboo clusters. Though there is some evidence as to the value of the yield, this may not be a relevant factor having regard to the principles of valuation appropriate to the case. There is no evidence about the timber value and the fuel value of the trees. Learned District Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 355.85 for the entire tree-growth. Having regard to the large number of trees and to the fact that some of them were timber trees, we think we should award lump sum of Rs. 7500 under this head. 26. Accordingly, compensation for the tree growth is enhanced from Rs. 355.85 to Rs. 7500.” 64. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 8 have held that when the land with fruit bearing trees standing thereon is acquired, either market value of the land including value of the trees treating them as timber or annual net income of the fruit bearing trees multiplied by capitalization of 15 years, whichever is higher, should be adopted. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal. The High Court laid the law correctly. 7. It is seen that Ex. B. 1 relied on by the State was rejected by both the Courts and, therefore, it cannot offer any reasonable basis to fix the market value of the land. It is equally seen that Ex. A. 1 and A.2 relate to small extent of land together with buildings standing thereon. Therefore, they too do not also form any reasonable basis or guide to determine market value of large extent of six acres of the acquired land. The High Court rightly did not place reliance therein. But from the evidence it is clear, as found by the Civil Court, that the lands possessed of potential value as building sites as the lands are situated in the city itself. There was all round development around the lands. The lands are situated half a furlong from the Bombay-Kanyakumari National Highway. It also abuts the road to Naduvattom, a busy bus route within the Corporation, Calicut. It is situated nearby the industrial area. There was all round development around the lands. The lands are situated half a furlong from the Bombay-Kanyakumari National Highway. It also abuts the road to Naduvattom, a busy bus route within the Corporation, Calicut. It is situated nearby the industrial area. The Western India Steel Mill, the Premier Steel Mills, Arts and Science College, Cinema Theature, Police Station and other offices are situated in close proximity to the lands and that, therefore, the lands are possessed of potential value but unfortunately the appellant did not place any material of the prevailing prices as house sites. However, the value of the land as fixed at Rs. 3,00,000 became final. The market value of the income from the trees with 15 years multiplier was worked out at Rs. 2,69,421.55 p. by the Civil Court and the High Court accepted to be the correct valuation and it was also not, questioned. But it is lesser than the value of the land. Being higher in value the appellant is entitled to the value of the land as determined by the Civil Court at Rs. 3,00,000 in total. The value of the trees as fire-wood shall be determined towards compensation. We have noted the number of coconut trees etc. The learned counsel has left to this Court to fix any reasonable compensation and on the totality of the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that total sum of Rs. 10,000 would be reasonable compensation towards the value of the total trees as fire-wood or as for use of other purposes after deducting salvage expenses. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,10,000. 8. Admittedly, the appellant is entitled to solatium at 15 per cent and 4 per cent interest under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. S. 30 sub-sec. (1) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 reads thus: Transitional provisions- (1) the provisions of sub-sec. (1 A) of S. 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by Cl. 3,10,000. 8. Admittedly, the appellant is entitled to solatium at 15 per cent and 4 per cent interest under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. S. 30 sub-sec. (1) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 reads thus: Transitional provisions- (1) the provisions of sub-sec. (1 A) of S. 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by Cl. (a) of S. 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to:- (a)every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date: (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the collector before the commencement of this Act.” (2) “The provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 and S. 28 of the Principal Act, as amended by Cl. (b) of S. 15 and S. 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act later the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1932, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act. “ 65. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168 have held that the report of expert could be acted by the court if relevant factual data or material which constituted basis of the report is also produced and the same is proved to be genuine. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before the court giving market value of the acquired lands, the court may, choose to act upon such report for determination of the amount of compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on the basis of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct. 66. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 have held that when the land is acquired with fruit bearing trees, the market value is to be determined on the basis of yield. Their Lordships have held as under: “3. Ms. Surichi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State, contended that the High Court has committed grave error of law in upholding the determination of the compensation both to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also further committed error in enhancing the market value to the fruit bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of the compensation separately awarded for land and the fruit bearing trees. It is against the settled principle of law as laid down by this Court in catena of decisions. We find force in the contention. Shri Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be at 213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by 60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then nesessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then nesessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words. market value of the land is determined twice over and on basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in S. 3(a) of Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given. In this case, the High Court did not adopted this procedure. We have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,240/- per acre on the basis of the yield, the multiplier applied is more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.” 67. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of J&K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others, AIR 1998 SC 2470 have held that separate compensation for fruit bearing trees and tube well is permissible in view of circulars issued by Government of J & K. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. As regards the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and tubewells the High Court had relied upon the Government circular which allows compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and tubewell separately. Nothing contrary has been brought to our notice and, therefore, we do not think it proper to disturb the said finding.” 68. As regards the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and tubewells the High Court had relied upon the Government circular which allows compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees and tubewell separately. Nothing contrary has been brought to our notice and, therefore, we do not think it proper to disturb the said finding.” 68. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Livisha and others (2007) 6 SCC 792 have held that so far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees is concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In such cases claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1145 wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistry v. Financial Commission & Revenue Secretary to Govt. of Punjab & Ors. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 635, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh & Anr. 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 637, para 4, and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 527 . In Airport Authority (Supra), it was held:- “14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurucharan Singh’s case and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years’ multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.” 69. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes and others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 have held that the valuer’s report constitutes expert opinion and, therefore, should be taken into consideration. Their Lordships have held as under: “28. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes and others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 have held that the valuer’s report constitutes expert opinion and, therefore, should be taken into consideration. Their Lordships have held as under: “28. In our opinion, the High Court has adopted a rough and ready method for making deductions which is impermissible in law. We have already noticed the valuers report. No reason whatsoever was given by the Reference Court or by the High Court as to why the report of the valuer and her evidence cannot be relied on. In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the High Court had no basis whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons and that it did not consider the future prospect of the development of the land in question. The High Court also did not assess the injury that the appellant is likely to sustain due to loss of his future earnings from the said land and also did not assess the damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of the notice and time of the collector taking possession. The Division Bench of the High Court has miserably erred in passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of compensation from Rs. 192/- to Rs. 38/- and in utter mis­reading of the evidence on record and acted in a flagrant error of law and facts. In our view, the orders passed by the Division Bench resulted in manifest injustice being caused to the appellants. The High Court also erred in passing the order by holding that the opinion of the government approved valuer was not based on any opinion method of valuation but solely on the basis of facilities available to the land. In our view, the High Court ought to have appreciated that the government approved valuer is an expert in her field and the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been rejected shabbily.” 70.Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 2238 have relied upon 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168 and have held as under: “28. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari & Ors. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari & Ors. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 168) it was held that a report of an expert for establishing the market value can be acted upon by the Court if “relevant factual data or material which constituted basis for the report is also produced and the same is proved to be genuine and reliable and the method adopted by the expert is found to be recognized and correct.” In this appeal, the report of the engineer engaged by the appellant to prove the market value of the acquired property, is based on his personal visit to the site of the acquired property, the map drawn by him after taking the measurements of the acquired property and the valuation report made by him after deducting the cost of depreciation. The valuer of the appellant has also submitted a map as well as the cost of depreciation report and the valuation report. He has also given details of the date of his visit to the said property in 1985. Further, it is not disputed that he has used the PWD practice and standard engineering norms while deciding the value of the acquired property. All these factors seem to make the valuation of the expert valuer worthy of credence, as per the ratio of the above-stated case. 34. Further, the inconsistency pointed out in the testimony of the expert valuer is that he stated in the cross- examination that it is necessary for valuation of the acquired property to consider the type of material used in the construction of the same and the place from which the materials were procured and in the examination-in-chief, he agreed that he did not see any report regarding the same. These statements are, however, not contradictory. While it might be necessary for the valuer to consider the abovementioned factors in the process of his valuation, it is not necessary for him to rely on the report of another person with regard to the same. He, being an expert in his field, can rely on his own knowledge, experience and judgment to come to conclusions regarding these aspects of the acquired property. Thus, the testimony of the expert valuer is not rendered discredited on this ground.” 71. He, being an expert in his field, can rely on his own knowledge, experience and judgment to come to conclusions regarding these aspects of the acquired property. Thus, the testimony of the expert valuer is not rendered discredited on this ground.” 71. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others vs. Khazana Ram and others, 1998 (1) Sim.L.C. 479 has taken into consideration rise in price index. The Division Bench has held as under: “8. Since both the parties are not disputing that the basis for determining the compensation is Harbans Singh formula, the controversy is narrowed down that how much increase should be allowed over the assessment of compensation made by the Department (Annexure PB to the writ petition and Ext. RW-1/A on the file of the District Judge) keeping in view the rise in prices from the year when the said formula was prepared and adopted. This formula is contained in Article ‘The Evaluation of Fruit Trees, Basic Principles and Method written by Shri Harbans Singh, the then Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh, which was duly approved by the Directors of Agriculture, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of assessment of market value of fruit trees. In judgment dated 9.7.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 98 of 1998 titled Smt Vijoti Devi (since deceased) through her legal representative Raj Pal Chauhan v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Single Judge of this Court has accepted this formula for determining the market value of the fruit trees. In the said judgment, it has been taken note of that this formula was published in the year 1966 since when there has been substantial increased in the Price Index. 331% or three-fold increase has been given for assessing the market value of fruit trees in the year 1986. Similarly, in Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1983 Revenue Law Reporter (P&H) 451 the Harbans Singh formula was applied for determining the market value of the fruit trees and premium was given for increase in Price Index from the year 1966 till the year of assessment of compensation.” 72.PW-10 Sh. J.K. Kashyap has deposed that his Department, i.e. Labour Bureau, Shimla prepares the consumer price index. According to him, the Consumer Price Index was taken into consideration of 402 till 1988. 73. J.K. Kashyap has deposed that his Department, i.e. Labour Bureau, Shimla prepares the consumer price index. According to him, the Consumer Price Index was taken into consideration of 402 till 1988. 73. The Division Bench of this Court in Collector L.A.C. Mandi vs. Karam Singh and others and other connected matters, Latest HLJ 2000 (2) (HP) 694 while relying upon standing order No.28 of Financial Commissioner has held that when the fruit bearing trees are acquired, trees distinctly and separately can be assessed. The Division Bench has held as under: “12. The Director of the Horticulture of the State Government while % assessing the market value of the fruit bearing trees has been adopting the formula of Shri Harbans Singh. The Land Acquisition Collectors of the State have applied and adopted the same formula in awarding compensation of the fruit bearing trees separately. In these factual position and circumstances, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Land Acquisition Collector cannot be permitted to urge that they are not obliged to pay the amount of compensation on the basis of the Standing Order No. 28 and Shri Harbans Singh formula for acquired lands and fruit bearing tees separately. The Land Acquisition Collector is the agent of the State Government who makes offer to the claimants of the amount of compensation awarded in the awards t and if the offer so made is not acceptable to the claimants, the claimants are entitled to receive the amount of compensation under protest and make j reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, the State Govt. and the Land Acquisition Collector, who are appellants before us in these appeals cannot be permitted to raise the plea that the awards of the Collector and enhancement of the amount of compensation by the District Judges and Additional District Judges based upon the Government Standing Order, provisions contained in the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual and Shri Harbans Singh formula which allow compensation in respect of the land and fruit bearing trees separately. Nothing contrary has been brought to our notice and, therefore we do not think it proper to disturb the awards of the Courts below making enhancement of the amount of compensation for the land and the fruit bearing trees separately. Nothing contrary has been brought to our notice and, therefore we do not think it proper to disturb the awards of the Courts below making enhancement of the amount of compensation for the land and the fruit bearing trees separately. These cases are squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the apex Court in State of J&K Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others (Supra) and we do not find any merit in these appeals filed by the State and the Land Acquisition Collector challenging the awards on the grounds ofa ssessment of compensation for lands and fruit trees separately.” 74. Learned Single Judge in Ramesh Chand and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 977 has held the land as well as trees standing thereon are to be assessed separately. The Learned Single Judge has held as under: “9. Another attempt was also made by the learned advocate General, when he made submission that trees and land is not to be separately assessed. According to him, appellants are either entitled to the price of the and as oan orchard land or of the trees. In my considered view, this plea is no moreopen in view of the standing order No. 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, as well as a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Collector L.A.C. Mandi Vs. 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 Himachal Pradesh and also taking not of Harbans Singh’s 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 Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and others, respondents ( AIR 1998 SC 2470 ). In this case it was held that for the land with fruit 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, Himachal Pradesh is there, whereunder while assessing compensation price of the land trees, structures etc. is to be separately assessed which will from the basis for assessment of compensation. In the case in hand, Standing order No. 28, issued by the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh is there, whereunder while assessing compensation price of the land trees, structures etc. is to be separately assessed which will from 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.” 75. The Division Bench of this Court in 2000 (2) Latest HLJ 694 (supra), has also taken into consideration para 28.9 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. According to para 28.9, the competent revenue officer has to assess the income from horticulture on the basis of age and kind of fruit-bearing plants according to formula evolved and approved by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as per Appendix ‘C’ of Chapter 28. Appendix ‘C’ extract is taken from “the evaluation of fruit trees, basic principles and method by Shri Harbans Singh”. This is commonly known as Harbans Singh formula. First part of Appendix deals with classification of fruit trees, value of the fuel of timber and final assessment of a tree. The value fuel of timber and final assessment of the tree, is to be made as under: “Value of the Fuel of Timber: Most of the fruit trees yield comparatively small quantity of fuel. Only a few fruit trees will have any timber value. However, every tree will turn out some fuel on being cut down. The extent to which a tree will provide fuel will mainly depend upon the glint of the main limbs and size of the tree. Once one knows the estimated quality of fuel wood on a tree at the time of its acquisition, it is easy to calculate its value by taking into consideration the local market rates of such a non dry wood. As regards timber value the work relates to the forest Department. Final assessment of a Tree: Most of the factors affecting the value of a tree have been elucidated. It would appear that the value of a tree at a particular time will be the sum total of the basic value, income from the remaining bearing years of the tree and fuel value. There is another a important factor which cannot escape attention. It would appear that the value of a tree at a particular time will be the sum total of the basic value, income from the remaining bearing years of the tree and fuel value. There is another a important factor which cannot escape attention. The owner of the tree will get payment for the future bearing capacity of the tree in one lot without incurring any expenditure on his tree, disposal of fruit etc. for the remaining bearing years. Normally he would have got income in yearly installments spread over a long period. There are obvious advantages and benefits in getting the income of all the future years in one lot. Such a compensation will be not justifiable. Keeping all these factors into consideration it has been felt that the value of the remaining bearing age of a tree may be reduce d to 25 per cent. This will do justice to the owner of the tree getting the compensation and the agency paying the price in one lot. The final formula will thus be as follows: Basic value of the tree + No. of remaining bearing years. x income per year x 1/4 + Fuel value A. Basic value. An apple tree comes into bearing in the 6th year and as such it remains in sapling stage for 5 yeas. (Sl. No. 1 col. 5 of appendix). (a) Non recurring expenditure: Rs.5.00 (col. 3 of appendix). (b) Recurring expenditure for 5 years at the rate of Rs.5/- per year: Rs.59.80 (col. 4 of appendix). Or say total basic value 5+(5x5)= Rs.30.00 B. Assessment of Remaining Bearing Age: A ten year old apple tree has already completed five years of bearing life. Average bearing life of an apple tree is 45 years (col. 6 of appendix). Having borne fruit for five years, the tree is expected to bear for another 40 years. A class I apple tree will give an yearly income of Rs. 100 per year (Col. 7 of appendix). Thus the tree will give a total gross income of Rs.4000.00 during the remaining years of its bearing life. Future expenditure and payment in one lot will reduce the amount by one fourth to Rs. 1000.00. or in other words (40x10x1/4)=Rs. A class I apple tree will give an yearly income of Rs. 100 per year (Col. 7 of appendix). Thus the tree will give a total gross income of Rs.4000.00 during the remaining years of its bearing life. Future expenditure and payment in one lot will reduce the amount by one fourth to Rs. 1000.00. or in other words (40x10x1/4)=Rs. 1000 Fuel Value: If the spot inspection reveals that the tree has about 5 quintals of wood and the local rate is Rs.5.00 per quintal of wet wood, the fuel value will be rs.25.00. Total value of a ten year old class I tree will thus be. Rs.30.00 (Basic value) +Rs. 1000 (Income from the remaining bearing years) +Rs.25.00 (Fuel value)=Rs.1055.00.” 76. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to standing order No.2 8 of Financial Commissioner’s Standing Orders whereby the detailed procedure has been given the manner in which the land has to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These standing orders have also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Collector L.A.C. Mandi vs. Karam Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694 (supra). 77. According to para 10-A of the Standing Order 28, the Office of the acquiring Department shall ask for a preliminary estimate of the value of land including the value of trees, buildings or other property standing on the land to be acquired from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) of the area concerned. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) must send this estimate within one month of the requisition. All that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) is expected to give at this stage is the ordinary rate per acre which land of the description fetches in the neighbourhood to a rough valuation of trees, buildings, etc. The estimate thus intimated are to be enhanced by 12% per annum till the date on which the award is likely to be made besides solatium at the rate of 30% in order to arrive at a fair estimate of the likely compensation for which a suitable provision in the budget of the Department need to be made. The estimate thus intimated are to be enhanced by 12% per annum till the date on which the award is likely to be made besides solatium at the rate of 30% in order to arrive at a fair estimate of the likely compensation for which a suitable provision in the budget of the Department need to be made. According to standing order 10-B as soon as notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is published the Land Acquisition Collector is required to send a copy of the same to the District Collector and ask for the data, necessary for a precise estimate of the value of the land including the value of the trees, buildings or other property (hereinafter called Collector’s rate). However, in order to avoid delay, a copy of the reference to the District Collector may simultaneously be sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) and Tehsildar concerned who has to complete the data and furnish it to the District Collector through Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil). Para 12 of the standing orders lays down methodology how the collector’s rates are worked out. On receipt of the application, the Collector of the District is to furnish data in the shape of rates per acre of the different kinds of land alongwith preliminary estimate of the value of trees, buildings and other property, if any, for which compensation will have to be paid. The rates of land per acre have to be worked out by the District Collector after taking into account average rate per acre determined from the sale transactions in the revenue estate concerned for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. The entire data has to be furnished in the proforma prescribed in sub para (x) of para 12 of the standing orders, dealing with the estimated value of any trees or other structures on the land. Para 13 of the Standing Orders prescribes for the method in which the data is to be made by the collector. Para 41 prescribes the authority for according approval of awards. It is stipulated therein that the land acquisition officer may make award without the prior approval of the Government where total value of the award is upto Rs. Para 13 of the Standing Orders prescribes for the method in which the data is to be made by the collector. Para 41 prescribes the authority for according approval of awards. It is stipulated therein that the land acquisition officer may make award without the prior approval of the Government where total value of the award is upto Rs. 1.00 Lakh provided the rates allowed for the land do not exceed the Collector’s rates by more than 10% and the compensation allowed for structures, trees, wells and tube-wells on the land, exceeds the amount recommended by the competent authority/ technical officer i.e. XEN PWD (B&R) in the case of buildings/ structures, XEN concerned of Public Health Department, in cases of wells, Tube wells and public health installations, District Officer of the Horticulture Department for Fruits, Trees and Divisional Forest Officer concerned for other trees. It is further stated therein that where building structures, wells, tube wells and other installations falling under the jurisdiction of Punjab Irrigation Department are involved, Executive Engineers of the Irrigation Department, will also be competent technical officers. Para 49(ii) lays down what matters are to be considered by the acquiring officer for compensation. According to this para, the statements of the persons interested are to be recorded as to whether they accept the measurements given in the report furnished under paragraph 37 and agree to the rates of compensation proposed to the various qualities of land, for trees, houses, standing crops etc. and to the appointment thereof. Para 55 prescribes the statement showing the compensation awarded on account of each holding. Column 9 deals with compensation for trees, houses etc. It is not disputed by the parties that the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 28 is followed for the purpose of acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 78. Similarly, now, the court has to determine the compensation for fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees. It has come in the standing order No. 28 that the value of the house and trees standing in the land has also to be worked out. Initially, these are worked out by the Department concerned. The compensation for fruit­bearing/non-fruit-bearing trees is to be determined as per Harbans Singh Formula and Appendix-C of para 28.9 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. Initially, these are worked out by the Department concerned. The compensation for fruit­bearing/non-fruit-bearing trees is to be determined as per Harbans Singh Formula and Appendix-C of para 28.9 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual. The Harbans Singh Formula was prepared in the year 1966, but while allowing the compensation, the inflationary trends have not been taken into consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in 1988 (1) Shim.L.C. 479 has taken into consideration the inflationary trends on the basis of price index. According to PW-2 Sh. Pratap Singh, Horticulture Development Officer, Harbans Singh formula was prepared in the year 1966. The compensation is paid on the basis of 1966 formula, but no price escalation was given. According to him, the valuation of the trees was undertaken by the Department on the basis of Harbans Singh formula prepared in the year 1966. While determining the valuation, the escalation of the price from 1966 to 1988 has not been taken into consideration. PW-6 Sh. R.P. Negi, Senior Clerk, Forest Division has deposed that his Department does not prepare rate of broad leaves trees. The Department has only taken fuel rates, which are duly approved by the Managing Director of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the State Government. The statement of PW-8 Tulsi Ram, Range Officer, is only about the broad leaves trees and not with regard to fruit-bearing trees. RW- 1 Shankar Dass has also deposed that the fruit-bearing trees have been assessed on the basis of 1966 Harbans Singh formula. The known method for calculating the market value of the trees is on the basis of its yield. However, in the case of fruit bearing trees yield has not been given, but still the claimants are entitled to reasonable compensation for fruit bearing trees on the basis of Harbans Singh formula and after taking into consideration inflationary trends/rise in price index. In case the inflationary trends are taken into consideration from 1966 after applying the Harbans Singh formula till the date of notification, the claimants are entitled to 30% increase in the compensation towards the acquisition of fruit-bearing trees standing on their land. 79. The Court has taken into consideration that normally the market value of the trees is not to be worked out if the land is acquired. 79. The Court has taken into consideration that normally the market value of the trees is not to be worked out if the land is acquired. However, in the instant case standing order 28 issued by the Financial Commissioner towards the acquisition of land is taken into consideration and the Land Acquisition Collector himself has awarded compensation to the claimants for acquisition of fruit- bearing trees standing on their land after applying Harbans Singh formula but has not given any premium for inflationary trends till the date of notification. As far as the assessment qua non-fruit-bearing trees made by the Collector and District Judge is concerned, the same need not be interfered with. 80. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 2470 (supra) have held that the instructions issued by the State Government the manner in which the land is acquired are to be complied with. This aspect has also been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 694 (supra). 81. In RFA Nos. 282/2001 and 286/2001, the claimants have also claimed higher compensation towards the acquisition of their land abutting the National Highway. They have not compromised the matter with the acquiring corporation. In majority of the cases, the claimants have compromised the matters and have accepted ! one lakh as compensation towards the acquisition of their land. 82. PW- 1 Mohar Singh has deposed that the land on either side of the National Highway has also been acquired. RW- 1 Shankar Dass has also admitted that the land of Sarla Devi was situate abutting the National Highway. RW-3 K.K. Gupta has also admitted that the land abutting the National Highway was also acquired. It is settled law that the land abutting the National Highway will fetch more price. As far as RFA No. 286/2001, there is no evidence that the land of the claimant was abutting the National Highway. 83. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mangatu Ram and others, (1997) 6 SCC 59 have held that the lands abutting main road are entitled to higher rate than the lands situated in the interior and uniform rate cannot be applied to such lands. Their Lordships have held as under: “4. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the belting is necessary in the circumstances of these cases? Their Lordships have held as under: “4. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the belting is necessary in the circumstances of these cases? When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate of market value. Necessarily, reasonable demarcation/classification should be made before determination of the compensation. Accordingly, we justified the classification of the lands into category ‘A’ and ‘B’. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the total extent of the land in his respective awards. Since the lands are admittedly abutting the Delhi-Hissar National Highway by-pass, the same would necessarily be granted a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior. Accordingly, we are of the view that lands situated around 500 yards from the main road should be classified as ‘A’ class land irrespective of the quality of the land, i.e., whether it is Nehari, Chahi, Banjar Quadium, Banjar Jadid or Gair Mumkin, the uniform rate of compensation at Rupees 1,00,000/- per acre would be granted to such lands. For the rest of the ‘A’ Class lands, the compensation would be at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as ‘B’ class lands and for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre would be reasonable, just and adequate compensation.” 84. Accordingly, the claimant in RFA No. 282/2001 will be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per bigha towards the acquisition of her land. So far as RFA No. 286/2001 is concerned, no evidence has been led by the claimant that his land abutting National Highway has been acquired. He has not compromised the matter with the acquiring corporation, however, in the interest of justice, he will also be entitled to the same rate which has been paid to other claimants, i.e. ! one lakh per bigha on the basis of compromise arrived at in RFA No. 255/2001 and analogous matters dated 30.7.2007. 85. Consequently, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, all the appeals and cross- objections are disposed of accordingly. one lakh per bigha on the basis of compromise arrived at in RFA No. 255/2001 and analogous matters dated 30.7.2007. 85. Consequently, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, all the appeals and cross- objections are disposed of accordingly. Only those claimants, whose buildings have been evaluated, are entitled to 30% increase towards compensation for the acquisition of their building(s) on the basis of the reports of PW-7 Jitender Kumar, PW-9 Bachiter Singh and PW- 11 Lalit Kumar. The claimants are also entitled to 30% increase towards the acquisition of fruit-bearing trees. The appellant in RFA No. 282/2001 is entitled to Rs. 1,30,000/- per bigha. Claimant in RFA No. 286/2001 is entitled to ! one lakh per bigha on the basis of compromise referred to hereinabove. These amounts shall carry statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The amount is ordered to be paid to the claimants, within a period of eight weeks from today, by the respondents. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.