Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/State, who were respondents before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against award dated 19.08.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Reference Court”), in Land Reference Petition No. 55 of 2003 (alongwith other reference petitions), whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that State of H.P., issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 08.07.1992 for acquisition of land situated in village Alyana, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., for construction of Sarori – Rissa Road and the said notification was published in HP Rajpatra on 01.08.1992 and also in newspapers ‘Dainik Tribune’ and Jaunsata on 08.08.1992. On 06.04.1993 wide publicity in the locality was made and on 24.07.1993 notification under Section 6 and 7 of the Act was published in HP Rajpatra and the same was also published in newspapers, i.e., ‘Dainik Tribune’ and Hindi ‘Milap’ on 21.08.1993 and 22.08.1993, respectively. On 14.12.1993 wide publicity was made in the locality. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the true area of the acquired land as 0-41-23 hectares and awarded compensation on the following rates:

3. The Land Acquisition Collector, after determining the true area of the acquired land and the rates of the acquired land, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,23,976/-.

4. The petitioners/claimants alongwith others, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation mainly on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector had not awarded adequate compensation on the basis of the market value of the acquired land, as it was situated on the boundary of N.A.C.. As per the petitioners/claimants, the measurement was not done properly and more area than shown in the notification was acquired. The upper and lower area of the acquired land was rendered unfit, as debris was thrown in the lower area and upper area was cut. Possession was taken earlier and the date shown in the award was wrong. Lastly, the claimants prayed that the compensation be enhanced.

5. The learned Reference Court allowed the petition of the petitioners/claimants and held them entitled for enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.31.30 per square meter qua the acquired land. In addition to the above, the petitioners were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land, they were also held entitled to amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced compensation w.e.f. 08.08.1992, the date of notification till the date of the award, interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession or the date of award, whichever was earlier for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount of compensation, as assessed above. Hence, the appellants/State preferred the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Act with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 19.08.2011, passed by the learned Reference Court.

6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/State, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 and also carefully examined the records.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises and the findings