Ms. Sunanda Bhandare, J. ( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal is directedagainst the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby themarket value of the land in question situated in Village Wazirpur was fixedat Rs. 2000. 00 per bigha. The Additional District Judge also apportioned theshare of the persons who were holding occupancy rights and the share of theowners having ownership right in the ratio of 60% and 40% per bigha i. e. Rs. 1200. 00 per bigha towards occupancy rights and Rs. 800. 00 per bigha towardsownership rights. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner gives up respondents 3 to 59. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge on both the points regardingenhancement as well as apportionment he does not challenge the question ofapportionment and restricts the appeal to the question of enhancement of compensation on the basis of enhanced market price. Learned Counsel has reliedon a judgment of this Court in RFA 511 of 1978 (Tulsi Ram v. Union of India)decided on 6/09/1984 in support of his contention that in respect ofthe same village but for an earlier notification, this Court has awarded compensation in the following manner: ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that in view of the latest pronouncements on the question of dividing the village into various blocks, uniformcompensation in respect of all the Blocks in the same village is to be given i. e. Rs. 6500. 00 per bigha. Learned Counsel submitted that the noticfication undersection 4 of the Land Acquisitiion Act in respect of Tulsi Ram s case (supra)was issued on 13. 11. 1959 whereas the notification issued in respect of the land indispute was issued on 26. 10. 1961. Thus, the appellants are entitled to get higherrate of compensation than the one awarded in Tulsi Ram s case (supra ). ( 4 ) NO one is present for Union of India to oppose the prayer of theappellant. ( 5 ) WE find that in Tulsi Ram s case this Court has fixedmarket value at Rs. 6500. 00 per bigha in respect of the one block in respect of the land in the same village. Thus, the market value of the land fixedby the Additional District Judge at Rs. 2000. 00 per bigha cannot be consideredto be correct market vaule. 6500. 00 per bigha in respect of the one block in respect of the land in the same village. Thus, the market value of the land fixedby the Additional District Judge at Rs. 2000. 00 per bigha cannot be consideredto be correct market vaule. There is great force in the contention of thelearned Counsel for the appellant that since the notification in respect of the landin question was issued after 1 year and 11 months, the appellant is entitledto get higher rate of compensation than the one awarded in Tulsi Ram s case (supra ). Undoubtedly, there is an upward trend in the price of land and there isnothing on record to show that at any stage, it had stangnated or fallen. Thus,the market value of the land in dispute must be assessed at a higher ratethan in Tulsi Ram s case. Considering that the land in dispute in the presentcase was acquired about I year and 11 months after the notification is Tulsiram s case was issued we assess the land of the appellant at Rs. 8450. 00 perbigha. ( 6 ) THE appellant will be entitled to compensation at the said rate inthe ratio fixed by the Additional District Judge. The appellant has claimedcompensation at Rs. 5500. 00 per bigha in the appeal. Thus, the appellant wouldbe entitled to compensation at the rate fixed by us only if he files amendedgrounds of appeal. Let the amended grounds of appeal be filed within 3months from today. Learned Counsel however states that the appellant hasalready filed Court fee for a higher claim. The Registry is directed to computethe Court fee payable by the appellant and if the appellant is found to beliable to pay any further Court fee, the appellant will be entitled to compensation at the higher rate fixed by us only on making good the deficiencyin Court fee. In addition to the market value assessed at Rs. 8450. 00 perbigha, the appellant will be entitled to 15% solatitum and interest @ 6% perannum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment of enhancedcompensation. The appellant will also be entitled to costs.