JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal, is, instituted before this Court by the State of H.P., its, standing aggrieved, by the learned Reference Court, hence meteing a 40% increase, vis-a-vis, the rental value, of, the building put to acquisition. Contrarily, the cross-objector, is, aggrieved, by, the meteing of, a, mere 40% increase, by the learned Reference Court, vis-a-vis, the building brought to acquisition. Since, both, RFA, and, the cross-objections are directed against a common award, hence, both enjoin meteing, of, a common adjudication thereon. 2. Uncontrovertedly, the entire apt building, was not subjected to acquisition, rather only a part thereof, stands, subjected to acquisition. Corollary whereof being qua hence only a part of the building, being affected by its acquisition, (a) ensuing effect thereof, is, qua, given evidence existing on record qua the unacquired portion of the building being larger in size, vis-a-vis, the acquired portion thereof, thereupon, also there apparently occurred, no total loss of derivable rentals, therefrom, vis-a-vis, the apt landowner. Contrarily, there was only a partial loss of rental income, from, the apt building. The learned Reference Court had concluded that a sum of Rs. 34,580/- per annum, is the apt amount, hence, comprising the rental income accruing, to the landlord concerned. Since, as aforestated, only a part of the building stood acquired, also, since the unacquired part thereof, rather comprised a substantial portion, of the building, thereupon, the learned Reference Court, had concluded, that an apt 40% increase, (b) given the location of the building, being meteable vis-avis, the aforesaid sum, of Rs. 34,580/- per annum, derived therefrom as rental(s). The aforesaid meteing, of, a 40% increase, vis-a-vis, the annual rental income derived by the landlord, is both just and fair, and, does not merit interference. 3. Even though, the cross-objector contested the meteing, of, the aforesaid 40% increase, vis-a-vis, the rental income, accruing from the acquired portion of apt building, yet the aforesaid contest, (a) is neither based upon any sound tangible evidence, nor hence is amenable for acceptance, (b) besides the claim reared by the cross-objector qua hers being entitled, to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, towards costs, for restoring the affected part of the building, is, also not acceptable, as no best evidence, stands adduced, comprised in hers, hence, expending the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, towards costs, for restoring the affected part of the building, is, also not acceptable, as no best evidence, stands adduced, comprised in hers, hence, expending the aforesaid sum of Rs. Five lacs, for, restoring the affected part, of the apt building, thereupon, the assessment, of, the amount of compensation appertaining therewith, is, both just and fair. 4. The further ground as meted in the crossobjections, reared, by the cross-objector qua hers being entitled, to quantification of compensation, borne, in, a sum of Rs. 500/- per square yard, (i) given the aforesaid sum of money standing reckoned, vis-a-vis, the property of one Aridaman Nath, wherewhose property also stood acquired, under, a notification common, with the notification hereat, yet the aforesaid plea is discountenanced, given an apparent contradistinctivity, in, the location of the properties of Shri Aridaman Nath, vis-avis, the location of the property, of, the cross-objector hereat. 5. Consequently, the instant appeal, as also, the cross-objections are dismissed, and, the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.