JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J.:- Brief facts of the present case are that the State government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), intending to acquire 1910 kanals 7 marlas of land in the revenue village of Raipur District Hissar. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25.6.1984. The Land Acquisition Collector pronounced the award dated 1.2.1986, whereby different compensation for different kinds of land was awarded as under:- “i) Nehri/Chahi land Rs.25,000/- per acre ii) Barani/Tal land Rs.15,000/- per acre iii) Tibba land Rs.10,000/- per acre” 2. Being dissatisfied, claimants preferred 32 references before Learned District Judge, Hisar. Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar (Reference Court) vide judgement and award dated 28.3.1989 enhanced compensation as per classification of the land. The enhanced compensation was as under: - “i) Nehri/Chahi land Rs.35,000/- per acre ii) Barani/Tal land Rs.25,000/- per acre iii) Tibba land Rs.17,000/- per acre” 3. The State as well as the claimants have preferred appeals against the award dated 28.3.1989. The State has challenged enhancement of compensation awarded by Reference Court, while feeling dissatisfied with the award, Cross Objections were also preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 4. Undisputedly, learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement dated 9.9.1999, dismissed the appeal of the State Government, while Cross Objections preferred by the claimants were partly allowed fixing rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and Tal Barani land and Rs.21,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and Tibba land. It was also clarified by learned Single Judge that claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits under the Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. By way of present intra-Court appeal, the appellant is challenging the order passed on the Cross Objections. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that since the land was acquired under one notification, hence, fixation of market price of land in different villages should be uniform. 7. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has observed as under: - “It is the conceded case that the land was acquired for extension of the Hisar Cantonment Area. In other words, Hisar Cantonment Area already existed and it was to be extended by acquisition of the said land as the land was located very close thereto. 7. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has observed as under: - “It is the conceded case that the land was acquired for extension of the Hisar Cantonment Area. In other words, Hisar Cantonment Area already existed and it was to be extended by acquisition of the said land as the land was located very close thereto. PW8, the Draftsman has proved the site plan Ex. PW 8/A, which shows the location and surroundings of the acquired land. As per this document, village Raipur is located behind village Satrod. Though Ex. PW 8/A does not reflect it, but it has been conceded by learned counsel for the parties that between village Satrod and Raipur, village Alipur falls. In other words village Satrod abuts the National Highway No.10, while village Alipur falls behind the revenue estate of village Satrod and thereafter village Raipur abuts village Alipur. As per Ex. PW 8/A no main road or pacca road abuts village Raipur, though a link road touches this village. Built up areas are at a distance from village Raipur. Village Satrod Khurd is also at some distance from the acquired land where the HUDA Industrial Area has been shown. As per the statement of RW3, the distance of city from the acquired land as shown in Ex.RW 3/A is nearly 13 kilometers. I do not see the necessity of discussing this matter any further in view of the fact that the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar himself had visited the acquired land and commended upon the acquired land in his inspection report dated 17.3.1989, which reads as under:- “Today at about 3.00 PM in the presence of Sarvshri Ramesh Arora, S.L. Sardana, K.R. Aggarwal, S.B. Sharma and R.C. Kakkar, counsel for the claimants and Sarvshri R.K. G.P. And R.S. Sohag, S.D.O., Defence Estate Office, Ambala Cantt., Ambala for the respondents, I inspected the spot. The acquired land seemed to be even and at present in most of the acquired land, Safeda trees were standing. The same could not be inspect at all places because of sensitive nature of the installations, which have come up. The acquired land seemed to be even and at present in most of the acquired land, Safeda trees were standing. The same could not be inspect at all places because of sensitive nature of the installations, which have come up. The acquired land touches the boundary of village Alipur and is at a distance of about 7 rectangles from National Highway No.10 and about 5 rectangles from the Sirsa – Hisar bypass” The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquired land does not have the same beneficial location and high potential like village Satrod. Mayier and Alipur. It falls at the rare of all these villages, though this land would have still a reasonable location and limited potential because it has been taken for the extension of the Hisar Cantonment Area being a land near thereto.” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants stated that compensation amount fixed for villages Alipur and Satrod should also be made applicable for the Nehri, Chahi and Tal Barani. According to the learned counsel for the appellants - claimants, learned Single Judge has discriminated and failed to fix uniform rate when land in question was acquired under the same notification. He has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Harchal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 20. In Harchal Singh’s case (supra), in paragraph 7 of the judgement, this Court has observed as under: - “7. The four villages are in the near vicinity of each other and are part of S.A.S. Nagar/Mohali and this town is adjoining Union Territory of Chandigarh on one side and, therefore, has acquired potential for urbanization. In Mohali itself lot of construction had come up before the acquisitions in dispute and therefore, contiguous villages on this ground had also gained potential for urbanization. Once urbanization has come up and the acquired land has gained potential for that purpose it will be wholly wrong to classify the land on the basis of agricultural quality. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire land including those which are Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim cannot be kept in a separate category for fixing price. However, if it is found that the land is in depression because of Chappar (Pond) or because of Khatan, lesser price may have to be fixed. 9. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire land including those which are Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim cannot be kept in a separate category for fixing price. However, if it is found that the land is in depression because of Chappar (Pond) or because of Khatan, lesser price may have to be fixed. 9. In the present case, learned Reference Court after making spot inspection as well as learned Single Judge has made categories of the land of different villages on the ground that land of villages Alipur and Satrod are well located while land in question i.e. Nehri, Chahi Tibba land are not well located. While in the case of Harchal Singh’s case (supra), land of each village was part of SAS Nagar/Mohali and was adjoining Union Territory, Chandigarh on one side and hence, found potential for urbanization. As observed above, in the present case, land of villages Alipur and Satrod was well located on the road and the land of the appellants - claimants was located far behind and hence, classification made by learned Single Judge cannot be said to be wrong. If potentiality of the land is found to be the same then of course same compensation should be fixed. However, if potentiality is different and location is different then classification is correct. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ---------------------