JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This judgment shall dispose of the regular first appeal No.378 of 2006 filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) against the award, dated 25.10.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla. 2. This judgment shall also dispose of another regular first appeal No.107 of 2006 filed by the appellant Rajiv Kumar against the judgment of the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, dated 25.10.2005. 3. Briefly stated the facts of RFA No.378 of 2006 are that the State of H.P. issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act for widening of National Highway Shimla-Wangtoo NH-22 Kufri Bye Pass on 5.9.1996. The total land involved was 12-04 bighas situated in Village Kufri Junga. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 17.6.1999, awarded compensation at the following rates: 4. The appellants preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation before the District Judge and the learned trial Court vide its impugned award allowed the reference petitions partly and granted compensation at the following rates: 5. Apart from the above, the appellants were held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,93,000/-as compensation for the acquired house as against the sum of Rs.2,86,783/-awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 6. The facts of RFA No.107 of 2006 are that the land was acquired vide same notification dated 5.9.1996, situated in Village Kufri Junga for widening of National Highway and the learned trial Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.34,320/- for Bagicha Bakhal Awal and Rs.16,356/- for Bakhal Awal. 7. Being aggrieved by the less compensation granted by the learned trial Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record of the case. 9. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that the land was situated near Kufri which is a tourist spot and the market value of the land in the area is at the rate of Rs.20.00 lacs per bigha. It was also submitted that for the land adjoining the land of the appellants, the compensation was assessed by the Court at the rate of Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha. It was also submitted that for the land adjoining the land of the appellants, the compensation was assessed by the Court at the rate of Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha. It was also submitted that the land of the appellants is situated adjacent to the said land and as such the appellants were also entitled to compensation as awarded in the connected case. In regard to the value of the house assessed by the learned trial Court, the same was not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General had submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court is just and adequate and it calls for no interference by this Court. 11. The notification in question was issued by the State Government on 5.9.1996 and the land situates in Village Kufri Junga. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned trial Court shows that it was observed that there is no dispute that the properties of the petitioners were acquired for widening/construction of National Highway and it abutted the road. It was also observed that Kufri is a tourist place and there are various tourist resorts in the vicinity. These findings have not been challenged to be incorrect. In determining the compensation for the land, the learned trial Court had referred to two sale transactions. The first transaction was sale deed Ext.PW-4/A made in the year 2000 and the rate was Rs.15.00 lac for one bigha of land also situated in Kufri. It is clear that the sale transaction Ext.PW-4/A was made in the year 2000 whereas the land had been acquired 4 years ago in the year 1996 and, therefore, it cannot be said to be in proximity in time to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 12. The second sale transaction referred was Ext.PW-2/A and the sale took place in the year 1990. The land was measuring 2 biswas and it was sold at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for two biswas. This property was adjoining Kufri bazaar as has come up in evidence. This transaction took place in the year 1990 i.e. 6 years prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and can be said to be relevant. This property was adjoining Kufri bazaar as has come up in evidence. This transaction took place in the year 1990 i.e. 6 years prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and can be said to be relevant. However, since a small piece of land was sold measuring 2 biswas only for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, some deduction had to be made. Accordingly, the learned trial Court did not rely upon the sale transaction wholly but it observed that 20% increase on the rate applied by the Land Acquisition Collector is justified and accordingly, the same was granted as detailed above. 13. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants had tendered in evidence copy of the award passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference 26-S/4 of 2000 decided on 28.12.2005. A perusal of the said award Ext.PX shows that the land was also acquired in that case for construction of Shimla Wangtoo NH-22 Kufri Bye Pass and notification under Section 4 of the Act was also issued on 5.9.1996. In that case also, the Land Acquisition Collector had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.436625.80 for Kuhal Awal and lesser compensation for land of other quality. The petitioners had also claimed in that case that the compensation should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.20.00 lacs per bigha. In that case also, a reference was made to sale transaction dated 5.9.1990 wherein one biswa of land situated at Kufri was sold at the rate of Rs.10,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha. After considering the evidence, the learned trial Court had concluded that the compensation payable for acquiring the land, which could be said to be reasonable, was Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha. 14. It is, therefore, clear from a reference to the above case that the land was acquired vide same notification, was situated near Kufri bazaar as in the present cases and there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants are entitled to lesser compensation than the one awarded to the petitioners in that case. 14. It is, therefore, clear from a reference to the above case that the land was acquired vide same notification, was situated near Kufri bazaar as in the present cases and there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants are entitled to lesser compensation than the one awarded to the petitioners in that case. The said case was decided on 28.12.2005 and the appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court as per the certified copy of the judgment passed in RFA No.429 of 2006 placed on the record, which was decided on 22.10.2009. Firstly both these appeals were connected with the said appeal, but subsequent these appeals were de-linked from the said appeal and the said appeal was subsequently decided before the decision of these appeals. Thus, the rate granted of Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha in the other connected case by the learned Additional district Judge was held to be reasonable and the said rate was also granted by this Court in connected appeal pertaining to the same notification issued. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs can be said to be just and adequate to which the petitioners are entitled to. 15. In view of the above discussion, accordingly hold that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2.00 lacs per bigha irrespective of the quality of the land and there is no interference in regard to the value of the house assessed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge. The appellants shall also be entitled to other necessary charges, additional solatium etc. as awarded by the learned trial Court. 16. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed to this extent. The Collector shall calculate the compensation and interest as awarded by the learned trial Court and the remaining amount shall be payable to the petitioners within four months from today. However, there is no order as to costs. Classification of land Rate per bigha 1.Kuhal Awal Rs.43,625.80 2. Kuhal Doyam Rs.36,468.40 3. Bagicha Bakhal Awal Rs.28,629.40 4. Bagicha Bakhal Doyam Rs.21,812.80 5. Karali Awal Rs.13,633.00 6. Karali Doyam Rs.7,157.40 7. Banjar/Ghasni Rs.5,453.20 1. Kuhal Awal Rs.52,344/- per bigha 2. Kuhal Doyam Rs.43,680/- per bigha 3. Bagicha Awal Rs.34,320/- per bigha 4. Bagicha Doyam Rs.26,160/- per bigha 5. Karali Bakhal Awal Rs.16,356/- per bigha 6. Kuhal Doyam Rs.36,468.40 3. Bagicha Bakhal Awal Rs.28,629.40 4. Bagicha Bakhal Doyam Rs.21,812.80 5. Karali Awal Rs.13,633.00 6. Karali Doyam Rs.7,157.40 7. Banjar/Ghasni Rs.5,453.20 1. Kuhal Awal Rs.52,344/- per bigha 2. Kuhal Doyam Rs.43,680/- per bigha 3. Bagicha Awal Rs.34,320/- per bigha 4. Bagicha Doyam Rs.26,160/- per bigha 5. Karali Bakhal Awal Rs.16,356/- per bigha 6. Karali Bakhal Doyam Rs.8,580/- per bigha 7. Banjar/Ghasni Rs.6,480/- per bigha