JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since both the above captioned appeals as well as Cross Objections, having been filed by the respective parties, are directed against the award dated 23.3.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, the same are being taken up together for adjudication with the consent of learned counsel representing the parties. 2. By way of two appeals bearing RFA No.495 of 2012 and RFA No.595 of 2012, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as well as Cross Objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter after referred to as 'CPC’), challenge has been laid to award dated 23.3.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference petition No.1-S/4 of 2005, as described in the award. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that Smt.Sarla Devi (appellant No.2 in RFA No.495 of 2012 and respondent No.6 in RFA No.595 of 2012 as well as in C.O. No.41 of 2014) died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives have already been brought on record as respondents No.2A to 2C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that suit land belonging to claimants (appellants as well as respondents No.3 to 6 in RFA No.495 of 2012 and respondents in RFA No.595 of 2012), came to be acquired for public purpose; namely; construction of Sanjauli - Dhalli bye-pass road and acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 18.11.2003. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'LAC’) passed award No.26 of 2004 on 08.12.2004. It is not in dispute that market value of acquired land came to be determined/assessed at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of the land. 6. Claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount awarded by LAC, preferred reference petition No.1-S/4 under Section 18 of the Act, seeking therein enhancement of compensation. Learned District Judge, Shimla, after framing issue and recording evidence of both the parties as well as after hearing the parties, vide impugned award dated 23.3.2012, re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5,32,416/- per bigha as against Rs.80,000/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 7. Learned District Judge, Shimla, after framing issue and recording evidence of both the parties as well as after hearing the parties, vide impugned award dated 23.3.2012, re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.5,32,416/- per bigha as against Rs.80,000/- determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 23.3.2012, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in reference petition No.1-S/4, having been filed under Section 18 of the Act, the appellants-claimants in RFA No.495 of 2012 have approached this Court for modification of the award and the appellants-State in RFA No.595 of 2012 have approached this Court for setting aside the impugned award. 8. It is not in dispute before this Court that similar situate claimants, whose land also came to be acquired for construction of Sanjauli - Dhalli bye pass road in the acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 18.11.2003, had filed land reference petitions before the learned District Judge, Shimla, praying therein to enhance the compensation awarded by LAC, which were decided and the compensation enhanced. The award(s) so passed were under challenge in this Court in several other appeals. One of such appeals, RFA No.42 of 2009, titled: Dr.Saif Ali Khan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, came to be decided along with its connected matters by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.3.2016. It is seen that this Court on re-appraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record has re-determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs.9,05,107/- per bigha and enhanced the compensation alongwith other statutory benefits accordingly. 9. Careful perusal of material available on record suggests that the State of Himachal Pradesh had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court against RFA Nos.181/2009 and 44/2009 by way of Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).4473-4474/2017 in the case titled as: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., which appeals were dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.12.2017 with the following observations: “Delay Condoned. No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 10. vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., which appeals were dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.12.2017 with the following observations: “Delay Condoned. No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 10. True, it is, that the land in the present case was acquired by the same notification as was issued in the case of Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra and even for the same public purpose, i.e. construction of Sanjauli-Dhalli bye-pass road, therefore, in view of Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra, the market value of the acquired land should also be at the rate of Rs.9,05,107/- per bigha. 11. Mr.Chander Paul Sood, learned counsel for the claimants, has acceded to the market value of the land determined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, did not point out as to why the compensation in respect of the acquired land should not be enhanced to Rs.9,05,107/- per bigha, instead of Rs.2,34,500/-. 12. Mr.S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents-State, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to passing of judgment dated 23.3.2016 in RFA No.42 of 2009, conceded that claimants in the cases at hand are also entitled to enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.9,05,107/- per bigha, as has been held by this Court in RFA No.42 of 2009 supra. 13. At this stage it may be noticed that appellants-claimants; namely; Shri Sharwan Kumar, Smt.Sarla Devi and Smt.Maya Devi, (who are respondents No.1, 6 and 7 in RFA No.595 of 2012, having been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector), filed RFA No.495 of 2012 praying therein for enhancement of compensation for acquired land qua their 3/4th share. 14. Besides above, above-named appellants-claimants in RFA No.495 of 2012 also claimed that they are entitled to ½ of compensation qua the house situated on Khasra No.29/1 and Khasra No.816/31. 15. 14. Besides above, above-named appellants-claimants in RFA No.495 of 2012 also claimed that they are entitled to ½ of compensation qua the house situated on Khasra No.29/1 and Khasra No.816/31. 15. Other claimants-cross objectors, namely; Smt.Rani Devi, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Narinder Kumar and Kumari Vandana, (who are respondents No.2 to 5 in RFA No.595 of 2012, filed by the Land Acquisition Collector), filed Cross Objections bearing C.O.No.41 of 2014 under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC praying therein for enhancement of award amount of acquired land qua their 1/4th share as well as compensation on account of their house situated on Khasra No.29/1 and Khasra No.816/31. As has been noticed hereinabove, by way of cross objections at hand, cross objectors-claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation of award passed by learned District Judge qua the acquired land. 16. Since this Court has held appellants-claimants in RFA No.495 of 2012, (who are respondents No.1, 6 and 7 in RFA No.595 of 2012, namely; Sharawan Kumar, Sarla Devi and Maya Devi), entitled for enhanced market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.9,05,107/- per bigha, instead of Rs.2,34,500/-, in view of judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra, Mr.S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that cross-objectors-claimants (in C.O. No.41 of 2014 in RFA No.595 of 2012) are also entitled to enhancement of compensation qua their acquired land as per their share. 17. Mr.Chander Paul Sood, learned counsel representing claimants-cross objectors also acceded to the market value of the land determined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra and, accordingly, it is ordered that directions contained in Dr.Saif Ali Khan’s case supra, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the case of claimants-cross objectors also. 18. Next question, which arises for consideration of this Court in the present proceedings, is that “Whether respondents No.1, 6 and 7 in RFA No.595 of 2012, namely; Sharawan Kumar, Sarla Devi and Maya Devi and cross-objectors Nos.2 to 5 in RFA No.595 of 2012 a/w C.O. No.41 of 2014, namely; Smt.Rani Devi, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Narinder Kumar and Kumari Vandana, are also entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of house situated on Khasra Nos.29/1 and 816/31”. 19. 19. Factum with regard to acquisition of house situated on Khasra Nos.29/1 and 816/31 is also not in dispute, rather claim set up for award of compensation in this regard came to be rejected by the Collector on the ground that respondents No.1, 6 & 7 and cross objectors-respondents No.2 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants’) have never been owners of Khasra Nos.29/1 and 816/31. Having examined material adduced on record by the cross-objectors, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of Shri Chander Paul Sood, learned counsel representing the cross-objectors, that it stands duly established on record that at the time of acquisition of land, respondents-claimants-cross-objectors were in possession of the house situated on the land bearing Khasra Nos.29/1 and 816/31. 20. Material evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the respective parties, clearly reveals that predecessor-in-interest of claimants had purchased possessory rights qua Khasra No.29/1 from one late Shri Gulam Baksh. Perusal of Ex.PW- 1/A clearly suggests that land comprised in Khasra No.29/1, Khewat No.290 min, Khatauni No.343, measuring 8 biswas, situate in same village, was in possession of one late Shri Gulam Baksh and subsequently it came to be purchased by late Shri Babu Lal i.e. predecessor-in-interest of claimants in the year 1945 for a consideration of Rs.250/-. It has also come in evidence that in the year 1970, Shri Babu Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, after having dismantled the old house, started constructing R.C.C. structure on the aforesaid Khasra Numbers and after his death, claimants completed two storeys and raised pillars for the third storey on the area. It is also not in dispute that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, late Shri Babu Lal and after his death, claimants had already completed two storeys and had raised pillars for the third storey. 21. Close scrutiny of Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/F and Ex.PW-4/G suggests that predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and thereafter, the claimants were in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.29/1 and they had possessory rights qua the same and, as such, they are well within their rights to seek compensation qua the house situate on the land comprised in Khasra No.29/1. 22. 21. Close scrutiny of Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-4/F and Ex.PW-4/G suggests that predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and thereafter, the claimants were in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.29/1 and they had possessory rights qua the same and, as such, they are well within their rights to seek compensation qua the house situate on the land comprised in Khasra No.29/1. 22. Factum with regard to possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and thereafter the claimants, on the land in question, is not in dispute, rather it stands duly admitted that property in question came to the possession of the predecessor-in- interest of claimants in the year 1970, whereafter predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, after having dismantled the old house, started raising new construction. There is no document, if any, led on record by the authorities to demonstrate that objection, if any, was ever raised by the land owners i.e. State at the time of construction being raised on the land bearing Khasra No.29/1. Similarly, there is no material led on record suggestive of the fact that eviction proceedings, if any, were initiated against the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants. Rather, careful perusal of Ex.PW-4/B i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 and Ex.PW-4/F clearly reveals that Gulam Baksh from whom predecessor-in-interest of the claimants had purchased the land in question, was recorded in the column of possession as “Gair Maurusi”. Aforesaid document reflects the entry showing Gulam Baksh to be in unauthorized occupation of the land in question, but, perusal of Ex.PW-4/F suggests that the land in question was came to be recorded as “Bartan Bashingdan Deh”, meaning thereby that the same was being used by the villagers or the residents of the area. 23. Cross-examination conducted upon PW-4 Sharawan Kumar, who happened to be claimant-respondent No.1, clearly suggests that respondent-State was unable to establish on record that predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and thereafter the claimants were not in possession of the house situate on Khasra No.29/1 at the time of acquisition of land. No suggestion worth the name has either been put to claimant-respondent No.1 or the other claimants-respondents that land comprised in Khasra No.29/1, over which house exists, was never purchased by his/their predecessor-in-interest and there was no building existing on the same. No suggestion worth the name has either been put to claimant-respondent No.1 or the other claimants-respondents that land comprised in Khasra No.29/1, over which house exists, was never purchased by his/their predecessor-in-interest and there was no building existing on the same. Similarly, no suggestion worth the name with regard to possession of the claimants over the land bearing Khasra No.29/1 came to be put to them, as such, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled for the compensation qua the house situate over Khasra No.29/1 as per their shares. 24. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Reliance Industries Limited and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 713 , while dealing with the situation where the owner of the land is/was State and owner of the building standing upon the land was someone else, held that since, building cannot stand without the land, the building also becomes part of the land. However, since the owner of the building is different from the owner of the land, and if a portion of the building is required for public purpose, it is open for the State to acquire that portion of the building by paying adequate compensation in respect of that portion of the building, as well as, in respect of proportionate diminution of the user if any of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held as under:- “28. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was enacted since the Act of 1870 was found entirely ineffective for the protection either of the persons interested in lands taken up or of the public purse. The object of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to amend the then existing law for acquisition of law for public purpose and to determine the adequate amount of compensation to be paid on account of such acquisition. 29. By looking at the definition as a whole in the scheme of the entire Land Acquisition Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it, we have interpreted the word 'includes’. The word 'include’ is opposite to the word 'exclude’. If the interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, then the definition of the land could not become an inclusive definition but the definition of “land” excludes certain factors. The word 'include’ is opposite to the word 'exclude’. If the interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, then the definition of the land could not become an inclusive definition but the definition of “land” excludes certain factors. The expression 'land’ includes benefits arising out of the land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The portion of the building cannot survive independent of the building and the building without the land. The word “land” should be understood having been covered by the elongated definition since it defines with inclusiveness that part of the building. 30. Having regard to the true intent of the meaning of the word 'land’, the only interpretation possible in the context is the interpretation as made by us, inasmuch as such interpretation will not take away the very meaning of the land. In the matter on hand, owner of the land is the State whereas the owner of the building is a respondent. Since, building cannot stand without the land, the building also becomes part of the land. However, since the owner of the building is different from the owner of the land, and if a portion of the building is required for public purpose, it is open for the State to acquire that portion of the building by paying adequate compensation in respect of that portion of the building, as well as, in respect of proportionate diminution of the user if any of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law.” 25. In the case at hand, as has been discussed hereinabove, the claimants were in possession of house situate on Khasra No.29/1 and they had acquired possessory rights qua the same after having purchased the land in question from Gulam Baksh, who stood recorded in revenue record as encroacher. Leaving that apart, perusal of Ex.PW-4/F clearly reveals that subsequently land in question (over which house is raised), came to be recorded as “Bartan Bashingdan Deh” establishing the fact that predecessor-in-interest of the claimants and thereafter the claimants had right to use the same and same was being used peacefully and uninterruptedly by them till the time of acquisition of land in question. 26. 26. Next question which remains to be decided is that “To what amount respondents-claimants-cross-objectors are entitled qua the house situate on Khasra No.29/1, which admittedly came to be acquired for construction of road in question?” 27. Respondents-claimants-cross-objectors with a view to prove market value of the property situate on Khasra No.29/1 examined PW-3 Vivek Karol, who assessed market value at the rate of Rs.7,50,000/-, whereas Executive Engineer, determined the value of the house/property at the rate of Rs.6,86,508/-, but it clearly emerge from the evidence that PW-3 carried out assessment purely on the basis of PWD schedule of rates while determining the market value of the house situate on the land in question, but no evidence is led on record by the respondents-claimants-cross-objectors to the effect that house/property in question was constructed on the basis of PWD schedule and as such, this Court is of the view that respondents-claimants-cross-objectors are entitled to the compensation on the basis of assessment made by the Executive Engineer of the department i.e. Rs.6,86,508/- for the house situate on Khasra No.29/1. 28. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as fair stand adopted by Mr.S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State, RFA No.595 of 2012 is dismissed and RFA No.495 of 2012 as well as Cross Objections No.41 of 2014 in RFA No.595 of 2012 are allowed and it is ordered that directions contained in RFA No.42 of 2009, titled as: Dr.Saif Ali Khan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another shall mutatis mutandis apply in RFA No.495 of 2012 and Cross Objection No.41 of 2014 in RFA No.595 of 2012. 29. Similarly, the claimants (respondents No.1, 6 & 7 as well as respondents-cross- objectors No.2 to 5 in Cross Objection No.41 of 2014), are also held entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.6,86,508/- on account of acquisition of house situated over Khasra No.29/1 to the extent of their shares, besides all statutory benefits available to them on account of compensation awarded by this Court qua the property in question. The award passed by learned District Judge, Shimla is modified to the aforesaid extent. 30. Respondent-State is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. 31. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.