JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeals are directed against the award dated 27.03.2012 passed by the District Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the Arbitrator) in terms of J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1968 (for short the Act), whereby the Indenting Department-Union of India through Defence Estates Officer, Northern Command has been directed to pay compensation to the land owners in respect of acquired land measuring 29 kanals and 8 marlas situated at Village Pathan Mohra, District Rajouri at the rate of Rs.69,000/- per kanal. While the Indenting Department-Union of India has challenged the impugned award by virtue of appeal bearing MA No. 456/2012 contending that the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Arbitrator is not justified, the land owners have also challenged the impugned award through the medium of appeal bearing MA No. 179/2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation. Both these appeals are proposed to be decided in terms of the present judgment. 2. Before coming to the rival contentions raised by the appellants, it would be apt to briefly refer to the facts leading to filing of the present appeals. 3. On 31.05.1997, Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued notice under Section 7(i) of the Act asking the land owners/tenants/alottees of land measuring 210 kanals and 13 marlas situated in Village Pathan Morha, District Rajouri under various khasra numbers to show cause as to why the said land should not be acquired. It is pertinent to mention here that the land in question was already under the occupation of the Army and the rental compensation was being paid to the land owners in terms of the provisions of the Act as the same stood requisitioned vide order No. 274 dated 10.04.1952. Notification in Form-J was issued vide No. Home/CL-38/91 dated 24.02.1999 by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department. Vide award dated 01.08.2000, the District Collector assessed the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per kanal and total compensation for entire chunk of the land was worked out to Rs.84,26,000/-. 4. Some of the land owners/appellants in MA No. 179/2012 raised a dispute about the quantum of compensation assessed in respect of the land measuring 29 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 53, 64 and 65. They received the compensation under protest and reserved their right to seek enhancement of compensation. 4. Some of the land owners/appellants in MA No. 179/2012 raised a dispute about the quantum of compensation assessed in respect of the land measuring 29 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 53, 64 and 65. They received the compensation under protest and reserved their right to seek enhancement of compensation. Vide SRO 101 dated 06.04.2005 issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the dispute in terms of clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 8 of the Act was referred to the Arbitration of the District Judge, Rajouri. It is in these circumstances that the proceedings relating to the arbitration were undertaken by the District Judge, who after receiving the written version of the land owners as well as the Indenting Department, vide his order dated 27.07.2007 framed the following issues : 1. What was the market value of per kanal of land of interested persons as at the time of its acquisition? OPP. 2. Whether the interested persons are entitled to claim for enhancement of compensation? O. P. Collector 3. Relief. 5. In order to prove their respective contentions, the parties were asked to lead evidence and accordingly the parties led their evidence before the learned Arbitrator. While the land owners examined PWs Trilok Raj, Subash Chander, Shakoor Khan, Meena Kumari and Patwari Sajjad Ahmed as witnesses in support of their case, the Indenting Department examined Sh. G.A. Khawaja, District Collector as witness in support of their case. Copies of a couple of sale deeds were also placed on record by the owners so as to justify the enhancement of compensation amount. 6. The learned Arbitrator after hearing the parties and after appreciating the material and the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation assessed in terms of the award passed by the Collector does not represent the market value of the land. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation was enhanced to Rs.69,000/- per kanal from Rs.40,000/- per kanal in respect of the disputed land and the impugned award dated 27.03.2012 came to be passed. 7. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation was enhanced to Rs.69,000/- per kanal from Rs.40,000/- per kanal in respect of the disputed land and the impugned award dated 27.03.2012 came to be passed. 7. The Indenting Department-Union of India has challenged the impugned award on the grounds that the learned Arbitrator has, while enhancing the compensation assumed that the compensation was paid to the land owners in respect of the acquisition of land undertaken in Villages, Rampur, Talwal and Gurdhan Pain in the year 1986 at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per kanal though there was no material on record in this regard. It has been further contended that the learned Arbitrator, while assessing the market value of the land, has taken into account the sale consideration depicted in sale deeds for small parcels of land which were of a period subsequent to the relevant year. It has also been contended that the learned Arbitrator has placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments which relate to the Land Acquisition Act, whereas the acquisition in the present case is under the J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act. It has been contended that the principles for assessment of compensation in both these enactments are entirely different from each other order, therefore, learned Arbitrator has fallen into error by relying upon the ratio laid down in the judgments cited in the impugned award. It has also been contended that the acquired land was not within the Municipal limits at the time of its acquisition and the learned Arbitrator has fallen into error by assuming that the land in question was located within the Municipal limits. 8. Per contra, the land owners in their appeal have sought enhancement of the compensation on the grounds that the learned Arbitrator has, while observing that the acquired land was similar to the land that was acquired in Village Talwal at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per kanal in the year 1986, taken the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30,000 per kanal on which escalation of 10% per year was given without justifying as to how the value of the land could have been taken as Rs.30,000/- per kanal instead of Rs.60,000/- per kanal. It has been contended that the acquired land is located just half a kilometre from the main Bus Stand of Rajouri carrying tremendous commercial potential and the learned Arbitrator despite noticing these facts, has assessed the compensation without taking these factors into account. It has been further contended that even as per the award passed by the Collector, concerned Tehsildar had reported that the market value of the land in Village Pathan Morha is Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal but the learned Arbitrator has not taken this factor into account while passing the impugned award. On these grounds, it has been contended that the appellants/land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 9.00 lacs per kanal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the grounds of appeal projected in the appeals, the impugned award and the record of the Arbitrator. 10. Before coming to the rival contentions raised by the parties in assailing the impugned award passed by the learned Arbitrator, it would be apt to notice the principles governing the assessment of compensation of land acquired under the provisions of the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968. Section 8 of the said Act governs the principles and methods of determining compensation under the Act. It reads as under : “8. Principles and method of determining compensation. (1) Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be given compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say, (a) where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be given in accordance with such agreement; (b) where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person, who is a District Judge, or Additional District Judge; (c) the Government may, in any particular case, nominate a person having expert knowledge as to the nature of the property requisitioned or acquired to assist the arbitrator and where such nomination is made, the person to be compensated may also nominate an assessor for the same purpose; (d) at the commencement of the proceedings before the arbitrator, the Government and the person to be compensated shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amount of compensation. (e) the arbitrator shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid; and in making the award, he shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), so far as they are applicable; (f) where there is any dispute as to the person or persons who are entitled to the compensation, the arbitrator shall decide such dispute and if the arbitrator finds that more persons than one are entitled to compensation, he shall apportion the amount thereof amongst such persons; (g) nothing in the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, shall apply to arbitrations under this section. (2) The compensation for the requisitioning of any property shall consist of: (a) a recurring payment, in respect of the period of requisition, of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property, if it had been taken on lease for that period; and (b) such sum or sums, if any, as may be found necessary to compensate the person interested for all or any of the following matters, namely: (i) pecuniary loss due to requisitioning; (ii) expenses on account of vacating the requisitioned premises; (iii) expenses on account of reoccupying the premises upon release from requisition; and (iv) damages (other than normal wear and tear) caused to the property during the period of requisition, including the expenses that may have to be incurred for restoring the property to the condition in which it was at the time of requisition. (3) The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under section 7 shall in the absence of an agreement be the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition. (4) Where there are several persons interested in the compensation, it shall be lawful for the Government, either on its own motion, or on an application from any person interested to appoint the same or any other arbitrator to make an award or supplementary award in respect of the dispute.” 11. (4) Where there are several persons interested in the compensation, it shall be lawful for the Government, either on its own motion, or on an application from any person interested to appoint the same or any other arbitrator to make an award or supplementary award in respect of the dispute.” 11. Sub section (3) quoted above, is relevant to the context and it clearly provides that the compensation payable for acquisition of property would be an agreed price and in absence of any agreement, it would be the price which the said property would fetch in open market, provided it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisition and had been sold on the date of acquisition. The provisions contained in sub section (3) are required to be understood properly for arriving at a conclusion as what would be the measure of compensation in respect of the property acquired under the Act. Firstly, it provides that measure of compensation for such property would be its market value as on date of the acquisition. Secondly, it provides that while determining the market value of the said property, it has to be kept in mind that improvements made in the property after its requisitioning are not to be considered. In other words, it has to be assumed that the property is in the same condition as it was at the time of requisition. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant/Indenting Department is right in his submission that the principles for assessment of compensation of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act would not be applicable to assessment of compensation of the land acquired under the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act. This aspect of the matter has been repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court in its various judgments delivered from time to time. In order to make the things more clear, it would be apt to refer to some of these judgments. 13. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Union of India v Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, while considering the issue relating to assessment of compensation under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952, which is in pari materia with the J&K Act, held as under : “52. 13. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Union of India v Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by LRs, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149, while considering the issue relating to assessment of compensation under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952, which is in pari materia with the J&K Act, held as under : “52. We are of the opinion that the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement under Section 8(1)(b). In the absence of such an agreement it is left to the discretion of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator under Section 8(1)(e) is to hear the dispute. Thereafter he is to determine the compensation which appears to him to be just. He must have regard to the circumstances of each case while applying the provisions of Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 8 which reads as under: 8(3): The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under Section 7 shall be- (a) the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition, or, 53. In our view, the significant omission of solatium is indicative of the legislative intent necessitating stress on the expressions "just and circumstances of each case'' occurring in subsection (1)(a) thereof. 54. Yet another distinguishing feature is the expression "open market". The reason why solatium has not been provided is that "open market" contemplates a bargain between a free buyer and a free seller unfettered by the consideration of requisition and consequent acquisition.” 14. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio, the Supreme Court in another case, titled, Union of India and others v Chain Singh and others, AIR 1997 SC 3000 , observed that the endeavour of the Court or the Arbitrator should be to sit in the arm chair of a prudent willing purchaser, keep the consideration of the feats of imagination at bay, seek answer to the question whether a willing and prudent buyer would offer to purchase the land from the open market from a willing seller, at the same rate which is proposed to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer/Court. The Court further observed that all the relevant features, namely, the nature of the land, the quality of the land, the market conditions prevailing as on the date of the acquisition, the income derived from the land etc, should be taken into consideration. 15. Again the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v Dhanwanti Devi and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 44 , has after noticing the provisions contained in Sections 7 and 8 of the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1968, interpreted the same in the following manner : “13. It would thus be seen that in determining compensation in respect of the acquired property, which is the subject matter of prior requisition and was in possession of the Government, the principle for determination of compensation is as per the bi-lateral agreement between the owner and the Government. Where it was not effectuated and no agreement was reached, the arbitrator is empowered to determine the compensation which the requisitioned property would have fetched in open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of its requisition but the prevailing price should be as on the date of acquisition. Had it been sold in the open market to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor, the price offered by a willing purchaser in the open market would be the yardstick. The arbitrator, therefore, is kept in the arm chair of a willing purchaser and should consider the circumstances attending the requisitioned property. Had it remained with the owner in the same condition as it was at the time of its requisition and if it were to be sold on the date of acquisition in that condition, the price a willing purchaser would offer would be just and fair compensation under the Act. The Acquisition Act provides for payment of interest under Section 34 by the Land Acquisition Officer and by the Court under Section 23. Similarly, Section 23(2) provides for payment of solatium, in addition to compensation, in consideration of compulsory acquisition. The presumptive evidence furnishes that the Jammu & Kashmir Legislature was aware of the above provisions and principles of determination of the compensation under the Acquisition Act, yet, the Legislature departed from those principles; instead, it set down under the Act its own principles to determine the compensation. The presumptive evidence furnishes that the Jammu & Kashmir Legislature was aware of the above provisions and principles of determination of the compensation under the Acquisition Act, yet, the Legislature departed from those principles; instead, it set down under the Act its own principles to determine the compensation. The Act did not expressly provide for payment of interest and solatium as components of compensation under the Act.” 16. Relying upon the aforesaid ratio of Supreme Court in Dhanwanti’s case (supra), the said Court in a later judgment in the case of Dayal Singh v. Union of India and others, (2003) 2 SCC 593 has, after noticing the provisions contained in the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 and the Land Acquisition Act, drawn a distinction between the mode and manner for determination of the compensation under the two enactments by observing as under : “17. The 1952 Act is a self-contained Code. The 1952 Act not only lays down a criteria for determination of compensation but also provides for the mode and manner thereof. The procedures for determining the award of compensation are not the same. 18. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are, ex-facie not applicable for determination of compensation under the 1952 Act. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the 1952 Act are, thus, not in para-materia. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, on the other hand, lays down the factors which are required to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. The mode and manner in which the compensation payable for acquisition of land under the 1952 Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are, thus, distinct and different. We fail to see as to how the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act can be made applicable in relation to a proceeding under the 1952 Act. 19. Furthermore, the criteria for determination of compensation in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 8 must be viewed with the limitations contained therein. In any event the market value of a property may also be determined from the stand-point of a willing purchaser of the land ready and willing to offer the consideration therefor to a buyer. The owner of a land normally would opt for the best offer. In any event the market value of a property may also be determined from the stand-point of a willing purchaser of the land ready and willing to offer the consideration therefor to a buyer. The owner of a land normally would opt for the best offer. Once he has agreed to a price; so far as he is concerned the same ordinarily should be presumed to be the best offer which he could get. 20. It may be true that in Haji Mohammad Ekrmul Haq's case (supra) this Court observed that even in the matter of payment of compensation under the 1952 Act, the criteria laid down under the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable. However, Section 8 of the 1952 Act underwent amendments and the provisions of the 1952 Act having not only laid down a complete machinery but also the mode and manner of determining compensation, the said decision of this Court cannot be said to have any application in the instant case. 21. This Court in Gurbachan Singh's case (supra) and Babu Singh's case (supra), in view of the aforementioned distinction following the judgment of this Court in Hari Krishan Khosla's case (supra) clearly laid down the law that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied in relation to an acquisition proceeding under the 1952 Act.” 17. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that principles for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act are distinct from each other. Whereas, in the former enactment, the assessment of compensation of acquired land has to be made by taking into account the factors mentioned in Section 23 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act but in cases relating to acquisition of land under the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, the measure of compensation has to be the market value of the land in question on the date of acquisition provided it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning. The crux of the matter is that the Arbitrator or the Collector has to determine as to what would be the prevailing market price of the land as on date of its acquisition or in other words as to what price would a willing purchaser offer for the land in question to a willing vendor. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant/Indenting Department has contended that the expression “same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning” appearing in sub section (3) of Section 8 of the Act would mean that whatever improvements have taken place in the vicinity of the acquired land after the requisitioning of the property cannot be taken into consideration while determining the market value of the acquired land. I am afraid the interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. What the aforesaid expression conveys is that the improvements that may have been made in the acquired land after its requisitioning are to be excluded from consideration while determining its market value but the said value has to be determined with reference to the date of acquisition and if as on date of acquisition, certain developments/improvements have taken place in the vicinity of the acquired land, the same cannot be taken out of consideration. 19. In light of the aforesaid principles, let us now proceed to determine as to what would be the market price of the acquired land as on date of its acquisition i.e. in the year, 1999. This has to be done in light of the material that was available before the learned Arbitrator. If we have a look at the award passed by the Collector, it is noted therein that the land in question is located within Notified Area Committee Limits, Rajouri and it is in the front line of Jammu Poonch National Highway. It is also noted in the award of the Collector that the land in question possesses good commercial value. The Collector has also noted that the rates of the land have increased manifold. The award of the Collector goes on to note that the Tehsildar Rajouri has reported that the market value of the land at the relevant time in the area was Rs. The Collector has also noted that the rates of the land have increased manifold. The award of the Collector goes on to note that the Tehsildar Rajouri has reported that the market value of the land at the relevant time in the area was Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal but because of the implementation of the Agrarian Reforms Act, no sale transactions have taken place in the village in question during the last three years. 20. From the award of the Collector, it is clear that the land in question is located on Jammu-Poonch National Highway; it has good commercial value; it is located inside the Notified Area Committee Limits, Rajouri and the Tehsildar has reported that the market rate of the land in Village, Pathan Morha is Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal. So far as the location of the land is concerned, it has been clearly stated by the witnesses of the land owners that the same is situated on Jammu-Poonch National Highway, inside the Notified Area Committee Limits of Rajouri. It has also come in the evidence led by the parties that the land in question is located at a distance of about 500 to 600 meters from the Bus Stand, Rajouri. 21. Patwari Sajjad Ahmed has stated that the land in question is located at a distance of one kilometre from Rajouri Bus Stand and it falls within the Municipal Limits of Rajouri. He has further stated that the Rajouri-Poonch National Highway passes through the land in question inasmuch as khasra Nos. 64 and 65 are on one side of the National Highway and said Highway passes through khasra No. 53. The District Collector has also stated that the land in question is located only at a distance of one kilometre across the river from the main Rajouri Town. He has further stated that the land in question touches Rajouri-Poonch National Highway. 22. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the land in question is located on Rajouri-Poonch National Highway. It is also clear that it is located at a distance of 500 meters to one kilometer from the Bus Stand Rajouri. The material on record further shows that even as on date of the acquisition, it was part of the Notified Area Committee Limits of Rajouri. 23. It is also clear that it is located at a distance of 500 meters to one kilometer from the Bus Stand Rajouri. The material on record further shows that even as on date of the acquisition, it was part of the Notified Area Committee Limits of Rajouri. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant/Indenting Department has submitted that the Village, Pathan Morha where the land is located, was included in the Municipal Limits of Rajouri only in the year, 2011 and prior to that it was not part of Municipal Limits. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon SRO dated 09.08.2011 which shows that the Village Pathan Morha has been included in Municipal Limits Rajouri. However, it is to be noted that prior to the coming into force of J&K Municipal Act, 2000, Rajouri was a town area and prior to that, it was a notified area under the earlier enactments on the subject. The record of the Arbitrator shows that Village Pathan Morha was made part of the Notified Area Limits in terms of Notification bearing SRO 76 dated 05.02.1969. Therefore, the contention of the Indenting Department that the land in question was included in Notified Area Committee Limits after the date of acquisition is without any substance. 24. Once it stands established that the land in question was located within the Notified Area Limits; it is located on the National Highway; it is only at a stone throw’s from the main Rajouri Town and the development of the Rajouri Town has taken place around the acquired land, the question that needs to be determined is as to in light of these factors what should have been the market value of the said land as on date of its acquisition. 25. In this regard, it has been noted in the award of the Collector that the concerned Tehsildar has reported that the market value of the land in the area was Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal and that there were no sale records available because of the implementation of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The sale instances on which land owners have placed reliance are relating to the transactions of small parcels of land measuring a few marlas and the same do not even relate to the period which is relevant for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the same would not of much help for determination of the compensation. The sale instances on which land owners have placed reliance are relating to the transactions of small parcels of land measuring a few marlas and the same do not even relate to the period which is relevant for determination of the compensation. Therefore, the same would not of much help for determination of the compensation. In the face of these circumstances, it seems that the learned Arbitrator has, after taking into account the location and the nature of the acquired land and without relying upon the report of the Tehsildar and the sale transactions produced by the land owners, concluded that the land which is the subject matter of the acquisition is of similar nature as the land that was acquired in Villages Talwal and Rampur in the year, 1986. The compensation in respect of said land was assessed at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per kanal. In this regard, it is to be determined as to whether the finding of the learned Arbitrator as regards the similarity between the acquired land and the land located in village Rampur and Talwal is based on any material. 26. PW Tarlok Raj has stated that the lands that were subject matter of acquisition in the year, 1986 at Village Talwal and Gurdhan Pain are at a distance of 3 kilometers from the land which is subject matter of the present case and it is located towards Poonch. He has further stated that the market value of the land acquired in aforesaid two villages in the year, 1986 was Rs.60,000/- per kanal with an escalation of Rs. 10% per year and that the said assessment was upheld up to the Supreme Court. He has stated that the land which is subject matter of acquisition in this case is located nearer to Rajouri than Village Talwal, therefore, its market value will be much more. 27. PW Subhash Chander has stated that his land located at Gurdhan Pain was acquired in the year, 1986 at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per kanal and the said rate was upheld by the High Court. He has further stated that the land which is subject matter of acquisition in this case is located within the Municipal Limits of Rajouri, therefore, value of the said land would be much more. 28. Collector Sh. He has further stated that the land which is subject matter of acquisition in this case is located within the Municipal Limits of Rajouri, therefore, value of the said land would be much more. 28. Collector Sh. G. A. Khawaja has stated that Village Talwal is located at a distance of 3/4 kilometers on Rajouri-Poonch road. He has also stated that the Village Gurdhan Pain is located at a distance of 5 to 6 kilometers from Rajouri Town. 29. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the Village Pathan Morha, where the acquired land is situated, is located within one kilometre of main Rajouri Town and it falls within the Notified Area Committee Limits of the said Town, whereas Village Talwal is located at a distance of about 3 to 4 kilometers away from Rajouri Town towards Poonch. From this, it is clear that the location of the Village Pathan Morha is similar, if not more advantageous to the location of Village Talwal and both these Villages are located on Jammu-Poonch National Highway. Thus, the learned Arbitrator was fully justified in considering the acquired land at par with the land that was acquired in Village Talwal in the year, 1986. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant/Indenting Department has contended that no documentary evidence was brought by the land owners before the learned Arbitrators to show that the land that was acquired in Village Talwal in 1986 was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per kanal. He has contended that mere oral statements of the land owners without any documentary support would not be enough to conclude that the land owners of Village Talwal were paid compensation of Rs.60,000/- per kanal. 31. In the above context, it needs to be noted that the process relating to acquisition of land in Villages Talwal, Rampur and Gurdhan Pain was undertaken in the year 1986 under the provisions of J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1968 and the same became a subject matter of litigation before the Arbitrator, whereafter the matter was taken to the High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court which led to the passing of the judgment, titled, Union of India and others v Dhanwanti Devi and others, (1996) 6 SCC 44 (supra). From a perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that the compensation for the acquired land located in Villages Rampur and Talwal was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per kanal by giving 10% escalation on account of passage of time. This quantum of compensation was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court to the extent of grant of solatium. Therefore, it is well documented that the compensation of the land acquired in Village Talwal in the year, 1986 was assessed at Rs.60,000 per kanal by giving escalation of 10% per year. 32. If we have a look at the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, he has, after recording a finding that the land which is subject matter of acquisition is similarly situated to the land acquired in Village Talwal in the year, 1986, taken the market value of the land in question at Rs.30,000/- per kanal as in 1986. No reason much less any cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Arbitrator for reducing the market value of the land in question from Rs. 60,000 per kanal to Rs.30,000/- per kanal as in the year 1986 in spite of holding that the land in question is similarly situated to the land located in Village Talwal that was acquired in the year 1986. 33. The aforesaid approach of the learned Arbitrator cannot be countenanced in law. Once it was concluded by the learned Arbitrator on the basis of the evidence on record that the disputed land is similarly situated to the land acquired in a different village located nearby, there was no justification for reducing the market value of the land of the disputed land. The finding of the learned Arbitrator that the market value of the disputed land in the year, 1986 was Rs.30,000/- per kanal is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The same on the basis of the evidence on record deserves to be taken at par with the market value of the land that was acquired in nearby villages in the year, 1986. 34. As already stated, the market value of the land located in nearby village Talwal was taken as Rs.60,000/- per kanal and the same was upheld upto the Supreme Court. 34. As already stated, the market value of the land located in nearby village Talwal was taken as Rs.60,000/- per kanal and the same was upheld upto the Supreme Court. Therefore, the market value of the land, which is subject matter of the present appeals, has to be taken as Rs.60,000/- per kanal as in the year 1986. Escalation of 10% per year deserves to be made for arriving at the market value of the acquired land in the year 1999, because the land in question is located in a semi urban area within Notified Area limits. Thus, by giving an escalation of 10 % per year, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.2,08,000/- in the year, 1999, the relevant date for the present purposes. This value of the land reached after giving 10% escalation per year is approximately the same that was reported by the Tehsildar while submitting his report to the District Collector, who without any justification and without any reasoning, discarded the said report of the said Tehsildar. The market value of the land as reported by the Tehsildar clearly finds support from the market value of the land assessed in the year, 1986 while acquiring lands in nearby villages. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the market value of the land assessed by the Tehsildar concerned in his report submitted to the District Collector. Accordingly, the market value of the land which is subject matter of the present appeals is taken as Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal. 35. In view of the above, the appellants/land owners/interest persons are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal. The award of learned Arbitrator deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 36. For the foregoing reasons, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Indenting Department-Union of India, the appeal filed by the land owners/interest persons is allowed and the award of the learned Arbitrator is modified by providing that the appellants in MA No. 179/2012 are entitled to compensation for the acquired land @Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal.