JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State against the impugned Award dated 28.08.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'), in Reference Petition No.37 of 2009, titled as Prem Chand vs. Collector Land Acquisition (Central Zone) HP.PWD & another, whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the value of the houses assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector by 40%, on the ground that the assessment by the Land Acquisition Collector, was made on the basis of HP Scheduled Rates 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses, was undertaken in the year 2005. 2. It is an admitted fact that two houses of respondent-claimant alongwith land were acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Sainj Bye Pass road in Phatti Dhangi, by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after issuing notification dated 02.04.2005 under Section 4 of the Act, which was lastly published in Raj Patra on 13.06.2005. Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of the land by passing Award No.1/2006 dated 27.05.2006, whereas houses and structures belonging to some landowners, including respondent-claimant, were not included therein due to non-receipt of the assessment of the acquired houses/structures from the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'HP.PWD'). After receiving the assessment of value of the acquired houses/structures, Land Acquisition Collector had announced Award No.2 dated 12.01.2007, whereby valuation of two houses of respondent-landowner was estimated as Rs.3,76,441/- and Rs.16,02,370/- vide valuation reports Ex.RW.1/A- and Ex.RW.1/G respectively by applying H.P.S.R. 1999 of HP.PWD. 3. Reference Court, after referring judgments passed by this High Court, has allowed addition of 40% of the value of the houses determined by the appellants on the ground that valuation, by appellants, was made on the basis of cost of wages and material prevailing in the year 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses in Reference was undertaken in the year 2005. There is a gap of five-six years between the years 1999 to 2005 and even if five years' gap is taken into consideration and hike @ 10% of the cost of wages and material is considered, then also, up to the year 2004 there would have been enhancement of more than 60% of the value arrived at on the basis of H.P.S.R. 1999 as if valuation in 1999 is taken as 100 then after adding 10% in cost of first year, value in second year will be Rs.110/- and 10% thereof to be added therein for value in third year will be 11 and accordingly 10% of third year would be 12.1 which will give value in four year 133.1 and 10% thereof will be 13.31 and this value in fourth year i.e. in 2003 as Rs.146.41 and by adding 10% thereof i.e. 14.64 in it value in fifth year i.e. in 2004 would be 161.05 which comes 61.05% higher than basic value of the year 1999. Whereas, Reference Court has only enhanced 40% of the value, which comes to yearly enhancement of about 7% and it appears to be genuine and reasonable. Therefore, on this count, no interference is warranted. 4. Another ground for assailing the impugned Award is that houses/structures keep on deteriorating and therefore, value of of houses constructed in the year 2002 shall be lesser in the subsequent years, particularly after three years. This ground was also agitated before the Reference Court, which was rejected by it, after referring the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Union of India vs. Savjiram and another, (2004) 9 SCC 312. In this case, compensation amount of the houses was disbursed by the Land Acquisition Officer, after deducting 5% towards depreciation. The said deduction was disallowed by the High Court. Union of India claiming this deduction to be lawful had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court in its judgment in paragraphs 10 to 15, after discussing the meaning of "depreciation", had rejected the claim of Union of India to deduct the depreciation from the total valuation of the houses, relevant observations of which are as under:- "10. Generally speaking, depreciation is an allowance for the diminution in the value due to wear and tear of capital asset employed by an assessee in his business. Generally speaking, depreciation is an allowance for the diminution in the value due to wear and tear of capital asset employed by an assessee in his business. Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn.) defines depreciation to mean, inter alia: "A fall in value; reduction of worth. The deterioration, or the loss or lessening in value, arising from age, use and improvements, due to better methods. A decline in value of property caused by wear or obsolescence and is usually measured by a set formula which reflects these elements over a given period of useful life of property. Consistent, gradual process of estimating and allocating cost of capital investments over estimated useful life of asset in order to match cost against earnings." 11. Parks in Principles and Practice of Valuation (5th Edn., at p. 323) states that as for building, depreciation is the measurement of wearing out through consumption, or use, or effluxion of time. Paton has in his Account's Handbook (3rd Edn.) observed that depreciation is an out-of-pocket cost as any other costs. He has further observed that the depreciation charge is merely the periodic operating aspect of fixed-asset costs. 12. The above position was noted in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT, (1999) 7 SCC 106 . 13. According to Webster's New Word Dictionary, "depreciation" means "a decrease in value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence; the allowance made for this in bookkeeping, accounting etc." 14. To put it differently, depreciation is the measure of the effective life of an asset owing to use or obsolescence during a given period. 15. Therefore, the stand of the appellant Union with regard to depreciation has no substance." 5. As the Apex Court has disallowed deduction on the basis of depreciation from compensation for the houses, Reference Court has decided this issue rightly and on this count also, appeal must fail. 6. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no ground for interference in the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Record be sent back. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no ground for interference in the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Record be sent back. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State against the impugned Award dated 28.08.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'), in Reference Petition No.37 of 2009, titled as Prem Chand vs. Collector Land Acquisition (Central Zone) HP.PWD & another, whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the value of the houses assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector by 40%, on the ground that the assessment by the Land Acquisition Collector, was made on the basis of HP Scheduled Rates 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses, was undertaken in the year 2005. 2. It is an admitted fact that two houses of respondent-claimant alongwith land were acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Sainj Bye Pass road in Phatti Dhangi, by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after issuing notification dated 02.04.2005 under Section 4 of the Act, which was lastly published in Raj Patra on 13.06.2005. Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of the land by passing Award No.1/2006 dated 27.05.2006, whereas houses and structures belonging to some landowners, including respondent-claimant, were not included therein due to non-receipt of the assessment of the acquired houses/structures from the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'HP.PWD'). After receiving the assessment of value of the acquired houses/structures, Land Acquisition Collector had announced Award No.2 dated 12.01.2007, whereby valuation of two houses of respondent-landowner was estimated as Rs.3,76,441/- and Rs.16,02,370/- vide valuation reports Ex.RW.1/A- and Ex.RW.1/G respectively by applying H.P.S.R. 1999 of HP.PWD. 3. Reference Court, after referring judgments passed by this High Court, has allowed addition of 40% of the value of the houses determined by the appellants on the ground that valuation, by appellants, was made on the basis of cost of wages and material prevailing in the year 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses in Reference was undertaken in the year 2005. There is a gap of five-six years between the years 1999 to 2005 and even if five years' gap is taken into consideration and hike @ 10% of the cost of wages and material is considered, then also, up to the year 2004 there would have been enhancement of more than 60% of the value arrived at on the basis of H.P.S.R. 1999 as if valuation in 1999 is taken as 100 then after adding 10% in cost of first year, value in second year will be Rs.110/- and 10% thereof to be added therein for value in third year will be 11 and accordingly 10% of third year would be 12.1 which will give value in four year 133.1 and 10% thereof will be 13.31 and this value in fourth year i.e. in 2003 as Rs.146.41 and by adding 10% thereof i.e. 14.64 in it value in fifth year i.e. in 2004 would be 161.05 which comes 61.05% higher than basic value of the year 1999. Whereas, Reference Court has only enhanced 40% of the value, which comes to yearly enhancement of about 7% and it appears to be genuine and reasonable. Therefore, on this count, no interference is warranted. 4. Another ground for assailing the impugned Award is that houses/structures keep on deteriorating and therefore, value of of houses constructed in the year 2002 shall be lesser in the subsequent years, particularly after three years. This ground was also agitated before the Reference Court, which was rejected by it, after referring the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Union of India vs. Savjiram and another, (2004) 9 SCC 312. In this case, compensation amount of the houses was disbursed by the Land Acquisition Officer, after deducting 5% towards depreciation. The said deduction was disallowed by the High Court. Union of India claiming this deduction to be lawful had approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court in its judgment in paragraphs 10 to 15, after discussing the meaning of "depreciation", had rejected the claim of Union of India to deduct the depreciation from the total valuation of the houses, relevant observations of which are as under:- "10. Generally speaking, depreciation is an allowance for the diminution in the value due to wear and tear of capital asset employed by an assessee in his business. Generally speaking, depreciation is an allowance for the diminution in the value due to wear and tear of capital asset employed by an assessee in his business. Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn.) defines depreciation to mean, inter alia: "A fall in value; reduction of worth. The deterioration, or the loss or lessening in value, arising from age, use and improvements, due to better methods. A decline in value of property caused by wear or obsolescence and is usually measured by a set formula which reflects these elements over a given period of useful life of property. Consistent, gradual process of estimating and allocating cost of capital investments over estimated useful life of asset in order to match cost against earnings." 11. Parks in Principles and Practice of Valuation (5th Edn., at p. 323) states that as for building, depreciation is the measurement of wearing out through consumption, or use, or effluxion of time. Paton has in his Account's Handbook (3rd Edn.) observed that depreciation is an out-of-pocket cost as any other costs. He has further observed that the depreciation charge is merely the periodic operating aspect of fixed-asset costs. 12. The above position was noted in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT, (1999) 7 SCC 106 . 13. According to Webster's New Word Dictionary, "depreciation" means "a decrease in value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence; the allowance made for this in bookkeeping, accounting etc." 14. To put it differently, depreciation is the measure of the effective life of an asset owing to use or obsolescence during a given period. 15. Therefore, the stand of the appellant Union with regard to depreciation has no substance." 5. As the Apex Court has disallowed deduction on the basis of depreciation from compensation for the houses, Reference Court has decided this issue rightly and on this count also, appeal must fail. 6. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no ground for interference in the impugned Award passed by the Reference Court and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Record be sent back. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.