JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’) as against the award, dated 24.2.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Land Reference No.1 of 1989. 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide two notifications dated 10.5.1985 and 26.11.1985, the land was acquired by the State for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of a Regional Engineering College at Hamirpur. The proceedings were initiated by the Collector, who entered into reference and passed award at different rates depending upon the quality of the land. 3. Reference petitions were filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the Act and the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, vide his common award in all cases, granted compensation at the rate of Rs.37,777/-per kanal, irrespective of the quality of land. Being aggrieved by the said award enhancing the compensation, the State has come up in the present appeal against the said award passed by the learned District Judge. 4. I have heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case. 5. It has been brought to my notice during the course of arguments that the award, as passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Reference Petition No.1 of 1989, was also under challenge in several appeals, which have been decided by this Court on 16.3.2010. A perusal of the record shows that this appeal as well as the other appeals (RFA No.221 of 1999 and other connected appeals) were filed challenging the said common award of the learned District Judge passed in Reference Petition No.1 of 1989. Therefore, this appeal should have also been tagged with the said appeals filed by the appellants, but those appeals have already been decided in which the award passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Reference Petition No.1 of 1989 was under challenge as in the present appeal. Therefore, no different judgments can be passed. This appeal is, therefore, covered by the judgment passed by this Court in RFA No.221 of 1999 decided on 16.3.2010. Therefore, there is no necessity of writing a separate judgment in the present appeal. 6. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed in view of the judgment passed in RFA No.221 of 1999. Therefore, no different judgments can be passed. This appeal is, therefore, covered by the judgment passed by this Court in RFA No.221 of 1999 decided on 16.3.2010. Therefore, there is no necessity of writing a separate judgment in the present appeal. 6. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed in view of the judgment passed in RFA No.221 of 1999. A certified copy of the said judgment be placed on the record of this case. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.