JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The challenge in this appeal is of limited nature. Claim with regard to enhancement of super-structure stands rejected in terms of impugned award dated 30.04.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Reference Petition No.102 of 2009, titled as ‘Sudershan Kumar and another versus Collector Land Acquisition NHPC and others. 2. The Collector Land Acquisition, in terms of Award No.43 of 2008, dated 17.12.2008, awarded a sum of Rs.11,55,696/- plus Rs.11,55,696/- towards the superstructure/building acquired by the State. It stands clarified that the claimants in the present appeal are satisfied with the redetermination of the market value of the acquired land in terms of the impugned award. 3. In order to establish their claim with regard to the super-structure, claimants placed on record valuation report Ext. PW-5/G which stands proved on record by an Expert, Er.Mohan Kapoor. The house in question was relatively new as it was constructed only in the year 2006. The Reference Court has rejected the report only for the reason that the beneficiary had got the property assessed from the officials of the Public Works Department and no challenge with respect to the report so submitted by the said authorities could be laid by the claimants. 4. Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that even if their evidence is to be ignored, even then, keeping in view the escalation of prices from the schedule of rates, benefit of some increase ought to have been accorded in favour of the claimants, more so, keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in National Hydro Electric Power Corp. vs. Smt. Sumundari & others, 2007 (3) S.L.J. (H.P.) 2021, wherein it is observed as under: “16. It is common knowledge that there is general trend of increase in cost of construction. The State has acquired land and structures under different notifications for construction of reservoir of Chamera Dam. In RFA No.72 of 1998, along with RFAs No.75, 56 and 63 of 1998 decided on 30.5.2007 and RFA No.127 of 1998 decided on 1st June, 2007, this Court has approved 50% increase in market value of the structures over and above the 1987 schedule of rates. In RFA No.72 of 1998, along with RFAs No.75, 56 and 63 of 1998 decided on 30.5.2007 and RFA No.127 of 1998 decided on 1st June, 2007, this Court has approved 50% increase in market value of the structures over and above the 1987 schedule of rates. The land and structures in those cases were also acquired for construction of reservoir of Chamera Project on the basis of notifications under Section 4 of the Act dated 6.6.1992 and 16.6.1992. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 is of 13.6.1992, therefore, 50% increase given by the District Judge for assessing the market value of the structures over and above the 1987 schedule of rates is just, reasonable and not arbitrary. The claimants/ petitioners have not otherwise independently proved that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act what was the value of their superstructure standing on the acquired land.” [ Emphasis supplied] 5. It is not in dispute that the super-structure came to be assessed by the Government officials on the basis of the H.P. Schedule Rates, prevalent for the year 1999; the structure came to be constructed in the year 2006; and the acquisition proceedings commenced immediately thereafter in the year 2007. In fact, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 05.09.2007. 6. At this stage, Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that claimants shall be content if escalation is restricted to 40%. 7. The market value of the super-structure had to be on the basis of schedule rates prevalent for the year 2007 and not 1999. Hence, it cannot be said that escalation by 40% is on the higher side. As such, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Sumundari (supra) the amount towards superstructure stands re-determined and enhanced by 40%. 8. It stands clarified that claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,55, 696/- each i.e. Rs.23,11,392/- +Rs.9,24,556/- (40%)=Rs.32,35,948/-. Impugned award dated 30.04.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Reference Petition No.102 of 2009, titled as ‘Sudershan Kumar and another versus Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC and others’, stands modified accordingly. It further stands clarified that claimants shall be entitled to interest in terms thereof. 9. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application, if any.