JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral):-The State has filed the present appeals assailing the impugned Award dated 27.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 3-S/4 of 2001, titled as Ved Parkash & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., and other connected matters. 2. Appeals No.78 & 79 of 2005 are also being heard and decided for the reasons that on the basis of the identical evidence, the Court below passed an identical award dated 6.12.2004 in Land Reference No. 12-S/4 of 2003, titled as Naresh Kumar v. State of H.P. & Anr. and Land Reference No. 11-S/4 of 2003, titled as Prem Dutt v. State of H.P. & Anr. 3. The land belonging to various land owners, including the claimants herein was acquired by the State for the public purpose, namely, ‘construction of Garkhal Parwanoo road’. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) issued on 30.5.1992, was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 18.7.1992. In relation to the acquisition proceedings, the Collector passed identical but following separate awards:- Award No.13/94-95 dated 8.2.1995, Award No.14/94-95 dated 9.2.1995, Award No.16/94-95 dated 20.2.1995 & Award No.17/94-95 dated 20.2.1995. 4. In terms of the award, the Collector determined the market value of the acquired land and awarded compensation with respect to different categories of land as under:- “(a) Kuhl, Banger I, II & III Rs.50,000/- per vigha. (b) Banjer Kadeem, Ghasni, Rs.10,000/- per vigha.” charand and gair mumkin Being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants herein, amongst other land owners, preferred Land Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Vide orders dated 10.7.2002, all the land reference petitions were consolidated and common evidence was led in Land Reference Petition No. 3-S/4 of 2001, titled as Ved Parkash & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. 5. In terms of the instant acquisition, the total land acquired of all the land owners in village Garkhal is as under:- Sr. Vide orders dated 10.7.2002, all the land reference petitions were consolidated and common evidence was led in Land Reference Petition No. 3-S/4 of 2001, titled as Ved Parkash & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. 5. In terms of the instant acquisition, the total land acquired of all the land owners in village Garkhal is as under:- Sr. No. Khasra Area Share (i) Ved Parkash and 7 other 376/1 0-16 1/8 each petitioners in case No.3-S/4 of 2001 (ii) Bala Dutt in case No.1- 23/1, 165/123/1, 17/1, 1-1 1/6 S/4 of 2001 171/19/1 3-10 2378/1 1-4 2696 (iii) Jeevan Sharma & 369, 466/1, 65/1, 0-5 1/8 2 Other petitioners in case 267/1, 1-4 15/720 No.2-S/4 of 2001 368/1, 377/1 (iv) Bhupinder Kumar 11/1, 13/1, 16/1, 1-55 1/18 in case No.4-S/4 of 2001 23/1, 15/1 (v) Laxmi Dutt and one 74/1, 78/1 0-1 0/6 petitioner in case No.5-S/1 of 0-5 2001 (vi) Keshwa Ram in 117, 442/1, 1-9-4 115/184 case No.6-S/4 of 456/1, 133/1, 0-13 16240 2001 449/1, 27/1, 128 0/2988 16 (vii) Hira Dutt deceased 24/1, 264/1, 1-0 1/3 represented by LRs and three 370/1, 370/2, 1-4 1/6 other petitioners in case No.8- 467/1, 466/1, S/4 of 2001 65/1, 267/1, 368/1, 377/1 (viii) Prem Dutt s/o 281/1 0-5 ½ Shri Krishan Dutt and three other petitioners in case No.9-S/4 of 2001 (ix) Susheel in 114/1 0-3 Full. case No.10-S/4 of 2001 (x) Naresh Kumar 11/1, 13/1, 16/1, 1-4 1/18 in case No.12-S/4 23/1, 15/1 0-8 share of 2003 0-1 0-1 0-1 (xi) Prem Dutt s/o 11/1, 13/1, 16/1, 1-4 ¼ Shri Sobha Ram 23/1, 15/1 0-8 share in case No.11-S/4 0-1 of 2003 0-1 0-1 Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Land Acquisition Collector did not assess the market value of acquired land, as alleged? ……OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, what was the market value of acquired land at the time of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? …OPP 3. Whether all benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solatium, interest etc. have also not been granted by the Land Acquisition Collector, as alleged? ….OPP 4. Whether the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1960,if so its effect? …OPP 5. …OPP 3. Whether all benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solatium, interest etc. have also not been granted by the Land Acquisition Collector, as alleged? ….OPP 4. Whether the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1960,if so its effect? …OPP 5. Whether no compensation for fruit bearing trees and other trees standing on the acquired land has been assessed, as alleged? …..OPP 6. Whether due to compensation of the road the adjoining land of the petitioners have been injuriously affected on account of throwing of huge debris, as alleged? …OPP 7. Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition as alleged? ….OPR 8. Relief” 6. Opportunity to adduce evidence was afforded to the parties and based on the material on record, the Court below, by referring to and relying upon the Sale Deed dated 6.4.1992 (Ext.RA) produced by the appellants themselves, determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. one lac per bigha. 7. The appellants have assailed the impugned award on the following grounds; (i) that the compensation could not have been uniformly applied with respect to all categories of land regardless of classification and categories; (ii) the interest under Section 23(2) of the Act, could not have been awarded from the date prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 9. In support of their claim, the claimants examined Shri Sushil Kumar (PW-1) & Shri Radha Krishan (PW-2) who proved on record the Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/A dated 9.4.1992, whereby 5 biswas of land situate in village Garkhal was sold for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and in terms thereof the market value of the land comes to approximate Rs.1,60,000/- per bigha; Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/B dated 23.6.1993, whereby 5 biswas of land situate in Mauza Garkhal was sold for a sum of Rs.62,500/- and in terms thereof the market value of the land comes to approximate Rs.2,50,000/-per bigha; Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/C dated 7.6.1996, whereby one bigha two biswas of land situate in village Garkhal was sold for a sum of Rs.4,16,000/- and in terms thereof the market value of the land comes to approximate Rs.3,78,182/- per bigha; Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/D dated 6.1.2001, whereby 10 biswas of land situate in village Garkhal was sold for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and in terms thereof the market value of the land comes to approximate Rs.9,60,000/- per bigha. 10. The instant acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1992. Except for Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/A, all sale transactions pertain to the period subsequent to the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings. In terms of Sale Deed Ext.PW-1/A, the market value of the land comes to Rs.1,60,000/- per bigha. The Court below has not assigned any reason for not considering and accepting the same to be the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land and awarding just, fair and reasonable compensation. 11. Be that as it may be, the claimants herein have neither filed any appeal/cross objections nor have sought further enhancement during the course of the hearing. 12. The Court below, however, has relied upon the Sale Deed Ext.RA dated 6.4.1992 evidencing sale of 3 biswas of land in village Garkhal for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, in terms whereof, the rate of the land comes to Rs.1,33,000/- per bigha. The same was proved on record by the appellant-State itself. 13. Taking into account the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovind das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona AIR 1988, SC 1652, Administrative General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, 1988(1) Recent Revenue Records 480, Kausalya Devi Bogra & Ors. The same was proved on record by the appellant-State itself. 13. Taking into account the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovind das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona AIR 1988, SC 1652, Administrative General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, 1988(1) Recent Revenue Records 480, Kausalya Devi Bogra & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892, the Court below reduced the said market value by making deduction to the extent of 25% due to the smallness of the land covered under the exemplar Sale Deed. 14. Importantly, undisputedly the similarity of potential, use etc. between the acquired land and the land situate in village Garkhal, Kafal-Ka-Hara, Gusan and Dochi stands established on record. The findings of the Court below to this extent are reproduced with affirmation:- “15. The village Garkhal is situate adjoining to Kasauli Cantonment area and other villages are also similarly situate. The potential value of the lands situate in village Garkhal, Kafal-Ka-Hara, Gusan and Dochi is high. Therefore, it is evident that the land was of similar high potential value. 16. PW-2 Radha Krishan has deposed that villages Garkhal and Gusan are adjoining each other. The lands of two villages are also comparable with the land situate in village Dochi and Kafal-Ka-Hara. There is nothing on the record to show that the lands of village Dochi and Kafal-Ka-Hara are in any way inferior to the lands of village Gusan or that the land of village Garkhal are in way better situated as compared to the lands of village Kafal-Ka-Hara and Dochi.” 15. While awarding uniform compensation with respect to the entire acquired land, the Court below returned the following findings:- “17. The Collector, Land Acquisition has awarded different rates. The land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a road. Therefore, the quality of land loses its significance. The value of the land is to be determined after taking into consideration the special advantage possessed by the land and the purpose for which it is acquired, where the land is acquired for construction of a road the market value of the land is to be determined by a reference to the purpose of acquisition. The value of the land is to be determined after taking into consideration the special advantage possessed by the land and the purpose for which it is acquired, where the land is acquired for construction of a road the market value of the land is to be determined by a reference to the purpose of acquisition. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust Bhopal reported in 1989 LACC 263 as under:- “It is an accepted principle that the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to the time at which its value has to be determined, that is the date of notification under Section 4, but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future.” 16. The ratio of law laid down in Suresh Kumar (supra) relied upon by the Court below squarely applies in the present case. 17. There is enough evidence on record to show that the acquired lands in different villages are having the same advantage and potentiality of increase in the value due to its advantageous location as it is situated in close proximity with the areas where the land is put to commercial use. 18. In L.A.C. Solan & Anr. v. Bhoop Ram 1997 (2) Sim.L.C. 229, this Court has held as under:- “The Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the market value at a lesser rate for the acquired land, which was classified as Bangar Doem, Bangar Kadim, Ghasni, Charand and Gair Mumkin but in our view the classification of acquired land for the agricultural purpose is not relevant looking to the common purpose of acquisition for the construction of road and uniform rate of Rs.40 per sq. metre or Rs.30,000/- per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land.” 19. The aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by the Court and in RFA No.2 of 1995, titled Phul Singh vs. LAC, this Court has held that if the land has potential for setting up of industry, the whole of it, irrespective of the kind and class of the land can legitimately be presumed to be of the same market value. 20. 20. This has further been followed by this Court in RFA No. 156 of 2003 decided on 20.8.2007, titled as Dinesh Chhetry v. State of H.P. & Ors. 21. Even if one categoryof land is better than the other category for agricultural purposes, but however, in view of the probable further use of the land for the public purpose, the land of different categories would be deemed to have similar potentiality and as such similar rate is required to be awarded uniformly irrespective of the category of land. The entire land is to be utilized for the purpose of construction of road, hence, no deduction is required to be carried out for development. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Court below and do not find any infirmity in the decision so arrived. The amount determined by the Court below for the entire land i.e. @ Rs. one lac per bigha is fair, just and reasonable. 22. I find no error in the findings of the Court below while uniformly applying the rates to the entire acquired land irrespective of its quality or classification. In fact the Court ought to have considered Sale Deed Ext. PW-1/A which is also proximate to the date of the initiation of the instant acquisition proceedings. 23. In the relief clause, the Court below has categorically held that the claimants are entitled for payment of interest w.e.f. 18.7.1992 i.e. the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The ground of challenge thus is misconceived. 24. No other point urged. 25. The Court below has considered the material in its entirety. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed.