JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. Heard on IA no. 148/21, an application for condonation of delay. This is an appeal filed against the award dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned District Judge/Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 381/2019 whereby the award in respect of the valuation of the constructed house has been enhanced up to Rs. 20,64,370/-. Present appeal is barred by 46 days. Shri Patwa submits that in respect of the notification and acquisition proceedings, number of appeals have been filed by the appellant before this Court. The entire period of limitation has been consumed for taking approval from various authorities, therefore, delay which has occurred neither intentionally nor deliberately, hence the delay be condoned. Shri Mangal opposes the prayer and submits that as per law the appellant is required to examine each and every date. The reasons mentioned in the application are vague in nature. I have perused the record as well as content of the application. Keeping in view the period of delay i.e. 46 days and identical appeals are pending before this Court, the delay in filing present appeal is hereby condoned. IA No. 148/21 stands disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. Admit. With the consent of parties, the appeal is heard finally. 1. This is a first appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award dated 31.10.2019 passed by District Judge, Badwani in Land Acquisition Case No. 381/2015 whereby the amount of compensation has been enhanced. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. Respondent was the owner of land bearing survey No. 80/1, 81/2, 81/3 & 82 and a land of area 1.627 hectare and five houses constructed therein. At the request of the appellants, the State Government issued notification dated 23.04.2010 for the acquisition of large area of land for implementation of the Indira Sagar Canal Project. Since the above land and five houses came under acquisition, hence the respondent submitted an objection u/s. 9 and thereafter award dated 25.11.2010 was passed. Being dissatisfied by the award, the respondent sought a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred by the Collector to the District Court, Barwani, hence the same was registered as case No. 381/2015. Being dissatisfied by the award, the respondent sought a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred by the Collector to the District Court, Barwani, hence the same was registered as case No. 381/2015. For the acquisition of land, a separate award was passed which was referred to the District Judge and decided as LA Case No. 380 of 2015. The present reference is relating to the acquisition of 5 houses belonging to the respondent. 3. After the registration of the Reference Case, the respondent filed a statement of claim contending that all the 5 houses were constructed over the land bearing survey Nos. 80/1, 81/2, 81/3 & 82 had south faced and constructed by RCC and tin shed with a taring approach road. As per the report given by the Executive Engineer, MP Division, houses were constructed with bricks, cement etc. The value of all the 5 houses were more than Rs. 25 lakhs but the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has not properly assessed the compensation which is liable to be enhanced at the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs. 4. The present appellants filed the reply by submitting that learned LAO has rightly assessed the compensation of Rs. 7,07,201/- on the basis of the market value of the properties and the guideline fixed by the Collector in the year 2000-2001. No further enhancement is possible in this appeal. 5. In support of the claim, the respondent examined himself as PW/1, Jagdish Nargave, Patwari as PW/2, Kishoresingh, Dy. Registrar as PW/3, Devendra Singh Parmar, Asst. Engineer, Rajan Bhatt, Pvt. Civil Engineer as PW/5 and got exhibited as many as 8 documents as Ex.P/1 to P/8. The appellants examined Shivprasad Mandrah, Land Acquisition Officer. 6. After appreciating the evidence came on record, learned District Judge/Reference Court has held that the respondent is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs in total for 5 houses with solatium of Rs. 4,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 1,07,013/- in total Rs. 20,57,013/- and vide award dated 31.10.2019 directed the appellants to pay the compensation of Rs. 20,57,013/- after deducting the amount of compensation already paid Rs. 7,07,201/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. Respondent has been served. Record of the Reference Court has been received, hence with the consent of parties appeal is heard finally. 8. 20,57,013/- after deducting the amount of compensation already paid Rs. 7,07,201/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. Respondent has been served. Record of the Reference Court has been received, hence with the consent of parties appeal is heard finally. 8. Shri Patwa, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the reference court has committed an error of law as well as on fact by enhancing the compensation of the house constructed over the land bearing survey no. 80/1, 81/2, 81/3 & 82. The respondent had already been paid compensation for the acquired land. He submitted a separate claim for the constructed house. The Land Acquisition Officer duly considered all the parameters to decide the appropriate compensation payable to the respondent. He has considered the prevalent CSR for the construction and rightly determined the cost of Rs. 7,07,201/- which was just and proper and without recording any reason learned District Judge has enhanced the amount exorbitantly to Rs. 15 lakhs without assigning any cogent reason, hence the impugned award be set aside. 9. Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the admission of this appeal that the respondent examined himself as well as Dy. Registrar, Tahsildar, Official Valuer, Pvt. Civil Engineer in respect of the valuation of the houses. He has produced the certified copies of the guidelines, the assessment made by the qualified Engineers for valuation of the property and the structure coming under the submergence, hence rightly valued the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is further submitted that before acquisition the respondent was using the 5 houses for his personal need and after acquisition now he is required to construct the new houses, therefore, the compensation ought to have been calculated on the basis of current market guidelines and the cost of construction, hence the compensation assessed by the reference Court is just and proper and no interference is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Reference Court. 10. The respondent examined himself as PW/1 and according to him, all 5 houses were constructed with bricks, cement etc. The second house was constructed with RCC roof. The third house was though tin shed house but constructed with cement and bricks. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Reference Court. 10. The respondent examined himself as PW/1 and according to him, all 5 houses were constructed with bricks, cement etc. The second house was constructed with RCC roof. The third house was though tin shed house but constructed with cement and bricks. All 5 houses were situated 30 meters away from State Highway No. 26 Khandwa-Badoda Road. Adjacent to the houses there was a taring road under the Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojana. All the houses were valued based on market guidelines of 2001 whereas the assessment ought to have been done on the basis of guidelines of 2010 i.e. date of issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. PW/2 who was posted as Patwari has deposed that the canal is parallel to the Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojana and the road is passing through the road of the respondent and the acquired land is 300 meters away from the village. The PW/3 who was examined by the respondent is posted as Dy. Registrar in the office of Registrar who has produced the guidelines of the year 2011 & 2012. The respondent has also examined Asst. Engineer Devendra Singh who is posted in the office of Indira Sagar Project Canal No. 11 and confirmed that the houses were valued on the basis of CSSR 2001. The respondent examined the Private Civil Engineer as PW/5 who submitted his report Ex.P/9 dated 25.09.2019 and valued the houses as per the guidelines of 2011 & 2012. According to him, the market value of the houses in the year 2011 & 2012 was Rs. 7500/- per sq. meter. The appellants examined Land Acquisition Officer as DW/1. In cross-examination, he admitted that the office of Executive Engineer has valued the house at the rate prevailing in the year 2011 whereas the notification was issued in the year 2010 precisely on 23.04.2010. He has also admitted that the land of the houses was not separately valued. He has also admitted that he did not visit the site and inspect the houses. 12. He has also admitted that the land of the houses was not separately valued. He has also admitted that he did not visit the site and inspect the houses. 12. It is correct that the LAO has assessed the compensation based on rate for valuation of house and structure in submergence of Sardar Sarovar & Indira Sagar Project guidelines issued in the year 2000 & 2001 whereas in the present case the notification under section 4(1) was issued in the year 2010, therefore, the valuation was on lower side. The Pvt. Civil Engineer PW/5 valued the property and issued a certificate dated 25.09.2019 Ex.P/9 and according to which the total value of all the houses are Rs. 16,17,750/- and no other evidence has been produced by the appellants to rebut the aforesaid assessment. The compensation ought to have been assessed on the basis of the guidelines of the year 2010 when the notification u/s. 4 was issued, therefore, the assessment was on lower side, hence the reference Court has not committed any error while granting the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs for all the houses. The enhancement of compensation from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs is not on the higher side with the difference of 9 years. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.