Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. In this appeal, State has assailed the award dated 20.07.2012, passed by Additional District Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Reference Case RBT No.286-J/10/2006, titled as Ran Singh & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector, Shah Nahar Project, Fatehpur. 2. Facts are not much in dispute. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act), was issued by the State Government on 02.09.2003. Acquisition proceedings culminated with the possession being taken over pursuant to the award being passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The public purpose being construction of Shah Nahar Project, Fatehpur. 3. The Collector awarded compensation affixing the value of the land to be Rs.3.50 lacs. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, which stands adjudicated by the Court below, in terms of the impugned award. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that there is no error with the findings returned by the Court below. It cannot be said that there is any illegality, irregularity or perversity with the same. Entire material stands correctly and completely appreciated in its correct perspective. 5. The Additional District Judge has enhanced the amount compensation from Rs.3.50 lacs to Rs.7.50 lacs per hectare. 6. The total amount of land involved is just 0-13-37 hectares. In fact, it is 1599.03 sq. yards. It has come on record that claimants are poor land owners/agriculturists who stand uprooted with their hearths and huts. In fact, they have lost their valuable agricultural land as also vocation. Claimants were owners of small land holdings. State deprived them of adequate compensation, which forced them to litigate. Sale deeds proved on record by the claimants, did not find favour with the Court below, but however, awards (Ex.P-1 and ExP-2) passed in relation to acquisition proceedings for the very same project, were taken into consideration while awarding higher compensation. It is not argued that these awards are under challenge or have not attained finality. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the claimants have proved on record that land acquired for the Project was contiguous, same and similar throughout the area, in question. Entire Tehsil Indora has fertile land, which is put to agricultural use. The place is famous for this purpose. 7. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the claimants have proved on record that land acquired for the Project was contiguous, same and similar throughout the area, in question. Entire Tehsil Indora has fertile land, which is put to agricultural use. The place is famous for this purpose. 7. The Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority Versus Raghubir Singh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , has held that increase in market value @ 10% to 12% per year can be provided for the lands which are situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. Which in fact is the case in hand. 8. As such, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.