These appeals involve the same question of fact and law and arise out of a common award dated 18.8.82 passed by the 'learned District Judge, Kamrup at Gauhati as Arbitrator appoin­ted under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisi­tion of Immovable Property Act, 1952, hereinafter called 'the Act', by which the present respondents were allowed enhanced compensation for acquisition of their lands. The appeals heard together are disposed of by this Common judgment. 2. The respondent in each of the appeal bad sometime in -the year, 1963 his land requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962. The property later in the year, 1969 was acquired under Section 7 of the Act, while the property tad continued to be under requisition since 1963, even after the operation of the Defence of India Act was withdrawn with effect from 10.1.68. In view of the insertion of the provision in Section 25 of the Act w.e.f. 101.68 it was stipulated that any immovable property, which bad been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act and which had not been released from such requisi­tion before 10th January, 1968, shall from that date be deemed to have been requisitioned under the provisions of this Act, i.e. 4be Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The property which was thus requisitioned in the year, 1963 under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and had continued to be under requisition until 10.1.68 when the operation of the Defence of India Act was withdrawn was to continue to be tinder requisition under the Act after that date. After the pro­perty was acquired under Section 7 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup allowed compensation for the three cate­gories of land at the rate of Rs.5000/- Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- her bigha. On the request of the respondents the State Government had appointed the District Judge, Kamrup as Arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act. The Arbitrator after considering the evidence for the parties by the award dated 18.8.82 allowed compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 7,000/-,Rs. 8, 500/- and Us 11,000/- per bigha respectively and also interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of noti­fication of acquisition, until payment. 3. The Arbitrator after considering the evidence for the parties by the award dated 18.8.82 allowed compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 7,000/-,Rs. 8, 500/- and Us 11,000/- per bigha respectively and also interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of noti­fication of acquisition, until payment. 3. Aggrieved, the Deputy Commissioner has come in appeals and Shri B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the award having been made after four months. From the date of notification of appointment of Arbitrator was invalid. Shri K. R. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has refused the submission. 4. I have considered the submissions for the parties. 5. Section 8 of the Act provides 'Principles and method of determining compensation', its Clause (b) in sub-section (1) relates to the appointment of Arbitrator for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid. There is no provisions in the Act itself which lays down any time limit for making the award. 6. However, under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953 framed under the aforesaid Act,, rule 10 (1) provides that an arbitrator appointed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 shall ordinarily complete the arbitration proceedings and give his award within four months, It further stipulates that if for any reason he is unable to give his award within that period, the time for making the award may be enlarged from time to time. Shri B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award was not made within 4 months, which appears to be true, and since the time for making the award had not been enlarged the award was invalid. The language of Rule 10 noted above, in my opinion dose not warrant such an interpretation and effect. The said provision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant only stipulates that ordinarily the award should be made with­in four months. It nowhere lays down that the award made after four months shall be invalid or that it shall have no force. 7. It is not clear from any material on record that whether the time had been enlarged or not and in the absence of any material it shall not be proper to take the view that no such enlargement of time was allowed. 7. It is not clear from any material on record that whether the time had been enlarged or not and in the absence of any material it shall not be proper to take the view that no such enlargement of time was allowed. However, even assuming that no such enlargement of time was allowed, I am unable to subscribe to the view that the award was not valid or was not to have any force. The submission for the appellant for the aforesaid reasons is not accepted and it is held that the impugned award was valid and has all the force in law. 8. In so far as the enhancement of compensation allowed is concerned the learned arbitrator had placed reliance upon cogent and satisfactory evidence of transactions of sale of land in the locality near about the same time and the enhancement allowed was justified. As a matter of fact, one of, the witness the respondents Bharat Chandra Kalita, Mandal, who was a revenue functionary had deposed that for land acquired in the same area compensation had been allowed @ Rs. 12,000/-per bigha near about the same time. The evidence of the Deputy Commissioner on the other hand had not at all been satisfactory and was rightly not accepted by the arbitrator. Even the statement prepared appeared not to have been acted upon by the Deputy Commissioner himself. The enhancement of compensation allowed by the Arbitrator cannot be said to be excessive. The enhancement allowed supported by evidence on record, was justified. 9. Shri K. R. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents be allowed enahanced interest. It is difficult to accept this submission for the reasons that respondents had claimed interest @ Rs. 6% per annum which was allowed by the arbitrator. I, therefore, see no reason to accept this submission for the respondents. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals have no merit and are dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- for these appeals to each of the respondents. As the acquisition took place about twenty years earlier, the appellant is directed to make payment of the due amount of compensation with interest and costs within three months from today.