The market value of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be assessed uniformly for all qualities of land, irrespective of its classification or nature, and the compensation for structures should be assessed based on the reproduction cost, after allowing depreciation and deducting salvage value.

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J.— Since all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of common award, as such we propose to take up and dispose of these appeals together and by a common judgment.

2. Brief facts of this case are that land was proposed to be acquired for public purpose namely, for construction of National Highway-21 and for this purpose Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued vide Notification SE-VI/1A Padoh/G-V-1963 8-42, dated 23-1-1983 by Himachal Pradesh Government in its public works Department under Sections 6 and 7 was issued on 24\1\1983. There were followed by futher notice U\S. 9 of Land Acquistion Act to the persons interested, who appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector. Total land sought to be acquired was 9-2-13 bighas and was of different qualities, viz., Barani-I 6-3-10 bighas, Barani-11 1-8-5 bighas, Banjar Kadim 0-0-9 bighas, Gair Mumkin 1-8-17 bighas and Kharater 0-1-12 bighas. Market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 was assessed quality-wise by the Land Acquisition Collector whereby rate of Barani-I was fixed at Rs. 9,140/- per bigha, Barani-11 was fixed at Rs. 6,155/- per bigha, Ban-jar Kadim was fixed at Rs. 2,285/- per bigha, Kharater was fixed at Rs. 1900/- per bigha and Gair Mumkin was fixed at Rs. 1,900/- per bigha. It was on this basis that the market value of the land was assessed and compensation awarded on this rate to the land owners concerned. Besides this market value of the land, value of structures as well as of trees was also assessed as per award dated 31-3-1994 made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Since the claimants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by he Land Acquisition Collector, reference applications were filed by them under Section 18 for determination of compensation by the District Court under the Act.

3. The land references came up for consideration before the District Judge, Mandi who, by means of impugned award, has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per biswa in respect of Barani land and Rs. 500/- per biswa in respect of the Khadyatar and Gair Mumkin and had ordered enhancement of compensation accordingly while deciding issue No. 1, but had not allowed any enhancement with regard to the houses/shops standing on the acquired land and has thus answered issued No. 2 in the negative.

4. Appellants in the present appeals have prayed enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector on both counts i.e., land as well as for structures. It may be appropriate to point out that Land Acquisition Collector had consolidated all the reference arisen out of this award and issues were framed which are to the following effect: -

1. What was the market rate of the land acquired at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhancement of compensation for the loss, if so, to what amount ? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation with regard to the houses/sops acquired in the award, if so, to what amount ?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced amount with regard to the types acquired in this land, if so, to what amount ?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation with regard to good will/loss of earning/carriage, if so, to what amount ?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced rate of compulsory charges under Section 23(2) of the Act, if so to what amount ?

6. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the interest on the market value of the property, if so in what terms ?

7. Relief. Issue No. 1, as pointed above, was also decided in favour of the appellant. Issues No. 2 & 3 were answered in the negative. Under issue No. 4, one Rattan Chand was found entitled for payment of compensation on account of good will and loss of earning/carri