JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.-These two appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the learned Reference Court in seven Reference Petitions. Separate appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Reference Court. 2. Before adverting to the facts on merits, the undisputed facts are that in Reference Petition No.22 of 1999/93, titled: Het Ram and Another vs. State of H.P. & Others, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for consolidating this case with Jivat Ram & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others, Ram Lal & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others, Padam Singh vs. State of H.P. & Others, Begma Devi & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others and Mohar Singh & another vs. State of H.P. & Others etc. This application was not opposed and was allowed by the learned Reference Court on 4.10.1994. All the cases involved the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued for the same purpose. Thereafter, a common award has been passed. in seven Reference The particulars of the cases consolidated are set out hereinbelow:- Sr.No. Name of parties Reference No. Appeal in High Court 1. Het Ram & Another vs. State of HP & Others. 22/1999/93 RFA No.2/2001 alongwith Cross Objection No.64/2001, decided on 19.11.2009. 2. Jivat Ram & Others vs. State of HP and Others 51/1999/93 RFA No.103/2001, decided alongwith RFA No.2 of 2001. 3. Padam Singh vs. State of HP and Others 16/1999/93 4. Mohar Singh and Another vs. State of HP and Others. 15/1999/93 5. Ram Lal and Others vs. State of HP and Others 58/1999/93 Subject matter of the present appeal. 6. Begma Devi and Another vs. State of H.P. and Othes. 299/1999/93 Subject matter of the present appeal. 3. As would be apparent and evident, by judgment dated 19th November, 2009, RFA No.2 of 2001, titled: State of H.P. & Others vs. Het Ram and Another and RFA No.103 of 2001, titled: State of H.P. & Others vs. Jivat Ram and Others, have been disposed of by this Court by a common judgment. It is undisputed before me that it is the same Notification, for the same purpose, in the appeals decided and in the present appeals. It is undisputed before me that it is the same Notification, for the same purpose, in the appeals decided and in the present appeals. The same arguments have been advanced by the learned Advocate General in these appeals as were addressed in the two appeals, namely, RFA No.2 of 2001 and 103 of 2001. I am not persuaded to take a different view. The appeals are dismissed for the reasons as given in RFA Nos. 2 of 2001 and 103 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. Cross Objections No.111 of 2001 in RFA No.360 of 2000 AND Cross Objections No.102 of 2001 in RFA No.3 of 2001: 4. Cross objections have been considered in detail on the same evidence which was in the Reference Petitions. Cross Objections are allowed. A flat rate of Rs.1,02,000/- per Bigha is granted to the claimants (as allowed in RFA Nos.2 of 2001 and 103 of 2001). The claimants-respondents will be entitled to all the other statutory benefits and increases. Cross Objections are accordingly disposed of. 5. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. Let a copy of the judgment in RFA 2/2001 and 103 of 2001 be placed on the record of this case and the connected appeal.