Saxena, J. 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred by the appellant/State against a judgment dated 9th March, 2009 in Civil Reference Case No. 33/06 of the District Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) directing thereby the appellant/State to pay a sum of Rs.31,28,876/- as compensation along with 12% additional payment under section 23(1A) from the date of the Notification, 30% solatium on the awarded amount with 9% interest in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are that a Notification dated 27/6/2003 for proposed acquisition of the properties belonging to the respondents under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which were situated in village Amola was issued. After complying with the procedure as laid down in law, declaration for the properties required under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was accordingly published. Thereafter on making enquiry, the Collector passed the award in favour of the owners/beneficiaries whose properties were acquired. Being aggrieved by the award, the owners/beneficiaries filed an application under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge for consideration of their claims. In Reference Case No. 33/06, the learned District Judge after considering the evidence as adduced and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the owners failed to establish their case and therefore by maintaining the Award assailed before him, rejected their claims for enhancement. However, at the time of consideration of the claims, the learned Judge found that since the properties belonged to the owners came within the definition of the lands, the claimants are also entitled to receive 12% additional compensation under section 23(1A) from the date of the Notification, 30% solatium on the awarded amount with 9% interest in accordance with the provisions of section 34 of the Act and thereby so awarded the amount under the aforesaid heads. Being aggrieved, the appellant-State has come to this Court.

3. Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State contended that the impugned Award in respect of payment of compensation as well as the amounts under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 34 of the Act is against the fact, evidence on record and he law. It is submitted that the provisions under the aforesaid sections would apply only to those cases where the land has been acquired but in the present case since the buildings were taken into acquisition, assessment of the value of the properties would be different than the agricultural land and the ratio of market value would not applied. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Kiran Tondan v. Allahabad Development Authority & others (AIR 2004 SC 2006) and ultimately prayed that by allowing the appeal, the award assailed in the appeal may be quashed.

4. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Award passed by the Reference Court is based against the recognized principles of law ?

5. On factual aspects, it is apparent that the learned Collector after considering the material placed on record and hearing the parties passed the appropriate amount for acquisition of the properties on legal parameters. The Award after due inquiry, under section 11 of the Act was passed by the Collector, Shivpuri. The findings of the learned Collector/Land Acquisition Officer is based upon proper valuation of the properties which stand affirmed on reference by the learned District Judge. Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. Since the Court-below held that the claimants utterly failed to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their cases their claims for enhancement of compensation was rejected. After considering the