Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Since both these appeals are directed against the award dated 1.11.1995, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Land Reference Case No. 2 of 1993, as such both these appeals are also being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Land measuring 24847.2 sq. meters was intended to be acquired for a public purpose. Namely for the construction of Housing Board Colony. This land was situate in Mohal Naya Nagar, Hamirpur, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. Notification for acquiring this land was issued on 30.5.1991, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This was objected to by means of a writ petition in this court. It was decided on 20.11.1991. Direction given in this writ petition was that Collector will be at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, treating the period for filing objections and Notification under Section 4 of the Act to have been issued on 20.11.1991. Collector was required to hear the claims and objections of the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, and then send his report to the Government for consideration. On receipt of the report from the Collector, Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act dated 12.11.1992 was published as required under law.

3. In the context of the acquisition in question, it is clear from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sub-Division, Hamirpur in Award No. 1 of 1993, dated 8.9.1993; that the land adjoins the existing Housing Board Colony.

4. As required under the provisions of the Act, land was got measured as also built-up area identified. Thereafter on the basis of classification, its compensation was assessed.

5. In addition to this, solatium at the rate of 30% of the total compensation besides interest was allowed.

6. Persons interested/Land owners, felt aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. As such they claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act to Court for determination of compensation.

7. Respondents when put to notice by the learned Court below justified the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. As according to them compensation awarded was adequate, indicating the market value of the land on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Whereas, according to the persons interested, compensation at the rate of two to three thousand per square meter was payable to them for the entire land irrespective of its classification. According to them this is a single plot which was having on one side a "Nullah", which irrigated the land under acquisition and on the other there was a PWD road leading from Hamirpur to Nalti. Trial Court framed the following issues :—

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector has not assessed the correct market rate of the land acquired in the Award, if so, what was the market value of the land in question at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.5.1991 and to what amount, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation.

2. Whether there had been" the fruit trees in the suit land as the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount.

3. Relief.

8. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. After consideration of the whole matter compensation was enhanced from Rs. 121 to 200 per square meters and from Rs. 60 to 100 per square meters besides solatium and interest etc.

9. In this background, both sides are aggrieved from the impugned award of the learned District Judge. It was pointed out on behalf of the Housing Board by Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, that compensation assessed is extremely on higher side. As according to him, on proved facts based on evidence produced by the parties, no exception can be taken to the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Whereas on the other hand, according to the learned Counsel for the pe