JUDGEMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) filed by the H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority, arising out of the common award of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 15.3.2000, passed in Land Ref.No.1-S/4 of 1996, titled Mangal versus Land Acquisition Collector and others, and other 45 connected reference petitions, vide which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha alongwith solatium and interest. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.9.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land was acquired for construction of a housing colony to be constructed by the appellant H.P. Housing Board (now H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority). The total land acquired was measuring 286 bigha and 5 biswas, situated in Village Bilawali Labana and Village Bilawali Gujjran, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The land of the petitioners and others was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector entered into reference and awarded compensation for different varieties of land as under: “Village Bilawali Labana: 1.Cost of Lehari Baranimeasuring 67-15 Bighas @40,554/- per bighas Rs.27,47,534.002. Cost of Tala Abal Baranimeasuring 67-15 bighas @30,010/- per bigha Rs.20,33,178. 00 3.Cost of Tala Boam Baranimeasuring 30-01 bighas @Rs.20,227/-, P.B. Rs.6,09,324.00 4. Cost of Changer Abal Baranimeasuring 21-13 bighas @15,410/- P.B.Rs.3,33, 627.00 5.Cost of Ghair Mumkin measuring 0-5 bigha @ 8,111/- P.b. Rs.2,028.00 “Village Bilawali Gujjran:1.Cost of Lehari Baranimeasuring 34-7 Bighas @ 32,580/- P.B. Rs.11,19,123.00 2. Costof Tala Abal Baranimeasuring 47-8 bighas @ 27,858/- P.B. Rs. 13,20,470.00 3. Cost of Tala Doam Baranimeasuring 3-4 bigha @ 10,860/-P.B.Rs.34, 752.00 4. Cost of Changer Abal Barani Rs.1,23,804. 00"measuring 11-8 bighas @ 10,860/- P.B. The petitioners in all these cases filed reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act praying that adequate compensation has not been awarded and the compensation accordingly deserves to be enhanced. 2.The main assertions made by the petitioners were that the Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into account the prevailing market price of the land in these revenue estates at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was alleged that the land in these revenue estates was being sold at the rate of Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.5.00 lacs per bigha. It was alleged that the land in these revenue estates was being sold at the rate of Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.5.00 lacs per bigha. It was also alleged by the petitioners that their land is on the road side, in the middle of industrial area, Baddi and is just at a distance of one furlong from Baddi market and Baddi Bus Stand and near to State Highway which goes from Nalagarh to Kalka. It was also alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector has not considered the value of the standing crops or trees and the damage caused to the land by severance and as such the compensation deserves to be enhanced accordingly. The respondent/H.P. Housing Board denied the assertions and pleaded that adequate compensation has been paid and the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the sale deeds while determining the market value which does not deserve to be enhanced accordingly. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the Land Reference petitions are vague? OPR 2. Whether the References have not been filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act? OPR 3. Whether the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.40,554/-, 30,010/-, 20,227/-, 15,410/- and 8,111/- of respective land as per bighas is inadequate and unjust? OPP 4. Relief. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned award enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per bigha irrespective of the quality of land. Being aggrieved, the H.P. Housing Board (now H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority) had filed the present appeals.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 2. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that the learned trial Court had wrongly enhanced the compensation to Rs.60,000/- per bighas, though there was no material to justify the same. It was further submitted that the compensation has been enhanced for all categories of land irrespective of the quality of the same, which approach of the learned trial Court was not correct. It was further submitted that the compensation has been enhanced for all categories of land irrespective of the quality of the same, which approach of the learned trial Court was not correct. It was also submitted that while determining the compensation or the market value, the learned trial Court did not make comparison of the two villages as to whether the land was similar in nature, was close to State Highway or Industrial Area or that they were entitled to uniform rate for both the villages irrespective of their proximity to Nalagarh Highway etc. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had failed to take into consideration the sale deeds proved before it, which rather proved that the rate per bigha comes to Rs.30,000/- or less depending upon the sale deeds proved, but the learned trial Court enhanced it to Rs.60,000/-, without there being any material on record to hold so. It was further submitted that the purpose for acquisition of the land was the same i.e. the construction of the housing colony and therefore, 40% deduction had to be made from the sale deeds proved in evidence since this much deduction was required as paths were required to be made and this deduction of 40% has been held to be reasonable from the value as determined from the sale deeds and as such, the compensation awarded was excessive, which deserves to be reduced considerably. 3.To substantiate his point that 40% deduction was liable to be made from the sale deeds proved in evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions. The decision in Shimla Development Authority and others versus Smt.Santosh Sharma and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1791, was relied upon, wherein it was held by their Lordships that 40% deduction has to be made towards the development charges. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha, which was enhanced to Rs.1.00 lac by the District Judge. On appeal, the High Court had observed that deduction of 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges was correct and the deduction of 40% was held to be proper. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha, which was enhanced to Rs.1.00 lac by the District Judge. On appeal, the High Court had observed that deduction of 40% of the compensation awarded towards development charges was correct and the deduction of 40% was held to be proper. Another decision relied upon was in K.Vasundara Devi versus Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 426, wherein it was observed in para 5 of the judgment as under: “When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land.” The deduction made to the extent of 40% by the High Court was held to be proper. 4.The decision in Basavva (Smt.) and others versus Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 640, shows that it was observed that when there was a sale deed of small plot situated at a distance of more than 1 km. and the land under acquisition in an undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development, observation was made that deduction between 331/2% to 53% from the market value for development charges held to be valid in several decisions. In that case, the High Court gave additional deduction of 12% and in view of the circumstances of the case, it was held that the principle adopted by the High Court of making deduction of 65% cannot be said to be illegal. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was in Suhru Ram and others versus Land Acquisition Collector, 2009 (3) Shim.L.C. 1, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had held thededuction at 40% to be appropriate on the basis of the price per square meter as per the sale deeds. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Land Acquisition Collector versus Kaila and others, 2010(1) Shim.L.C. 25, wherein this Court had held the deduction at 40% from the rate of sale as proper after referring to various decisions. 5. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Land Acquisition Collector versus Kaila and others, 2010(1) Shim.L.C. 25, wherein this Court had held the deduction at 40% from the rate of sale as proper after referring to various decisions. 5. Similar observations were made by the learned Single Judge of this court in Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi versus Smt.Suresh Kumari and others, 2008 (3) Shim.L.C. 116, wherein the development charges to the extent of 40% were deducted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was for the State to have led evidence to prove as to what was the market value of the land on the date of the issuance of the Notification, which burden had not been discharged by the State. It was submitted that the deduction can be to the extent of even 33% and some guess work is permissible. However, it was also submitted that when the area is already developed or it was a fast developing area being near to the Industrial Town, Baddi in Nalagarh, no deduction was required to be made in this regard. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners had placed reliance upon the decision in Union of India versus Mangat (Dead) by LRs. and others, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 609, in which case it was observed by their Lordships that location of the land was to be a prime factor in determination. The Collector fixed the land value based on its quality while the Additional District Judge disregarding Collector’s approach fixed the market value taking the average of price as determined by the sale deeds produced. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, ignoring the location of different parcels of the land, enhanced the compensation. It was held that the market value of the land which abuts the National Highway would be much more than the land which is farther away from the National Highway. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge was restored. The stress had been on the location of the land in question in this case. Another decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents was in Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer versus Ramanjulu and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 594. 6. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge was restored. The stress had been on the location of the land in question in this case. Another decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents was in Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer versus Ramanjulu and others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 594. 6. It shows that the market value was fixed for lands acquired two years earlier for the same purpose for which lands in the present cases was acquired and it was held that escalation at the rate of 10% for two years is to be added to it for determining the market value of the current land. The deduction was made to the extent of 15% only since the land was adjoining the developed lands of the first and second phases of the industrial estate. The decision in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty(2) versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another, (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 75, was relied upon wherein the High Court had deducted a sum of Rs.25/- per sq.ft. for development charges and had awarded Rs.75/- per sq.ft. considering the location of the land. It was observed that the land acquired was only for widening of the National Highway, therefore, no question arises for such development or any costs therefor. Hence, it was held that the High Court erred in directing deduction on account of the development charges. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others versus Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2424, wherein it was held that the distance between the similarly situated lands and presently acquired land is not relevant and it was also held that the relevancy could be their distances from the Town. 7.Therefore, it follows from the above discussion of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the parties that no uniform formula can be laid down as to how much development charges are to be deducted while considering the small parcels of land owned by the petitioners. 7.Therefore, it follows from the above discussion of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the parties that no uniform formula can be laid down as to how much development charges are to be deducted while considering the small parcels of land owned by the petitioners. It has also been held in some of the cases that normally the deduction to the extent of 40% can be said to be appropriate but in some of the cases it had been held that deduction may be less or may not be made keeping in view the facts of the case, the proximity of the land to the town and other such relevant factors. In my opinion, apart from these considerations, the purpose for which the land is acquired has also to be considered and if the purpose, in the present case, was for construction of a housing colony, it can be said to be a commercial transaction since the plots/flats are to be built and thereafter to be sold by the appellants and, therefore, no deduction was required to be made and the petitioners were entitled to the same price as has been paid for the land in the nearby vicinity. In this regard, a reference has to be made to the evidence led before the learned trial Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned trial Court has reproduced every details of the petitions filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Collector, which runs into number of pages but when the question of discussing the evidence comes, the same has been discussed only in para 223 which runs into less than one page. The learned trial Court had made reference to some of the sale deeds which need to be referred to arrive at a correct conclusion. Reference was made to the sale deed, dated 29.1.1993, Ext.PW-4/A, vide which the land was sold for a total consideration of Rs.21.50 lacs but it was clearly mentioned that the rate being given was Rs.60,000/- per bigha. A reference was also made to the sale deed Ext.PW-5/A, dated 30.1.1993. The rate fixed was Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The third document relied upon was the sale deed Ext.PW-6/A, dated 29.1.1993. The rate fixed was Rs.60,000/- per bgiha. A reference was also made to the sale deed Ext.PW-5/A, dated 30.1.1993. The rate fixed was Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The third document relied upon was the sale deed Ext.PW-6/A, dated 29.1.1993. The rate fixed was Rs.60,000/- per bgiha. The fourth document was the sale deed Ext.PW-10/A, dated 29.1.1993, vide which the land was sold in favour of the Electricity Board at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The next document proved was the sale deed Ext.PW-10/B, dated 29.1.1993, wherein also the sale consideration was Rs.60,000/- per bigha. 8.All these sale deeds were executed by the private parties with the Electricity Board who had acquired the land and accordingly they had agreed to sell the land to the H.P. State Electricity Board for a sale consideration at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha. These sale deeds were executed for the land in Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The learned trial Court did not mention this fact that these lands were situated in different villages. It did not refer to the evidence, if any, as to the distance in between these lands and the lands acquired of the petitioners in the present cases, which was very relevant. Therefore, reference has to be made by this Court to the evidence led in this regard since this was a material evidence and, as it has not been referred to by the learned trial Court, this Court can consider the evidence and there is no necessity to remand the case after so many years simply on this ground. A reference can be made to the testimony of PW-1 Inderjit Singh, petitioner, who has stated that this is a developed area since 1983-84 and many industries have been established and he had named some of them also. He also stated that on the both sides of this land, there are two High Schools. He further stated that the land of villages Katha, as referred to in the above sale deeds, also adjoins this village. He also stated that the State Highway is at a distance of 11/2 kms. and at 1 km. there is Police Station, ESI, Post Office, Telephone Exchange etc. PW-5 is Birbal Dass, who sold the land to the Electricity Board at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha. PW-7 J.R. Gupta, SDO, has stated that this land is in between the industrial area and is a levelled land. and at 1 km. there is Police Station, ESI, Post Office, Telephone Exchange etc. PW-5 is Birbal Dass, who sold the land to the Electricity Board at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha. PW-7 J.R. Gupta, SDO, has stated that this land is in between the industrial area and is a levelled land. There is no specific evidence led on record by the appellant to prove the market value of the land by producing the sale deeds executed prior to the date of issuance of the notification. They proved some plans in regard to the land but no such specific evidence has been pointed out to show the distance in between the acquired land and the land sold by various sale deeds referred to above executed in favour of the Electricity Board. 9.The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board is an autonomous body under the control of the State Government and once they had agreed to purchase the land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- in the same Tehsil, but in a different village, it could be assumed that they would not have agreed to give a fancy price to the sellers and they must have agreed to purchase the land at this rate once they were satisfied that it was the fair price prevalent in the area. Keeping in view the fact that the area was fast developing as per the evidence, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents in their reply and the fact that various sale transactions have been proved having been executed almost at the same time when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, as per the dates mentioned above, the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha cannot be said to be excessive. The respondents did prove the lay out plan Ext.RW-7/A, but the distance was not mentioned of the village from Baddi or in between the land purchased by the Electricity Board and the land in question in the present cases. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court did not consider the quality of the land in different villages and it could have been considered only when specific evidence was led. Therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court did not consider the quality of the land in different villages and it could have been considered only when specific evidence was led. Once the purpose was for construction of a housing colony and the petitioners were being deprived of their lands, they were entitled to same rates irrespective of the quality of land depending upon the purpose for which the land was being purchased by the Housing Board, which could be termed as a commercial purpose for which no deduction for development charges was required to be made. Since the petitioners were owning small pieces of land individually, the development charges could not have been deducted from the amount of sale deeds referred to above. 10. The learned trial Court had failed to make a detailed reference to the evidence but the conclusion drawn is correct that since the Electricity Board had voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- per bigha for the lands situated in the nearby villages in the same Tehsil and there is nothing on the record to show that the said land was quite far off from the present land acquired or that the said land was of more value or was nearer to the Industrial Town than the present one. Therefore, the net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the petitioners were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha cannot be said to be unreasonable calling for an interference by this Court. The area in question was a fast developing area, as has come up in evidence and not disputed during the course of arguments, and once an autonomous body like the State Electricity Board having control of the State Government has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- per bigha for the land acquired by them in the nearby villages, the petitioners were entitled to the similar treatment and as per the sale deeds proved, the petitioners were also entitled to same compensation as has been paid in those cases. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the enhancement made by the learned trial Court for compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha cannot be said to be excessive, which calls for no interference by this. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the enhancement made by the learned trial Court for compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha cannot be said to be excessive, which calls for no interference by this. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant which are dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this judgment be placed on the record of other connected appeals. *****************************************************************************