JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This judgment shall dispose of present appeal and cross objections No. 249 of 2004 and 75 of 2005, arising out of the same award. 2. The appellant-H.P Housing Board and Urban Development Authority acquired land belonging to the respondents/cross-objectors situate in Mauza Sirinagar, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan for the construction of housing board colony. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' in short) was issued on 07.05.1999. The same was published in 'Divya Himachal' and 'Punjab Kesari' the Hindi dailies on 24.05.1999 and also in the gazette on 07.05.1999. Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was also issued on 01.05.2000 published in official gazette on 03.05.2000, whereas, in 'Ajit Samachar' and 'Vir Pratap' the Hindi dailies on 16.05.2000. The detail of the land proposed to be acquired was as under: Village Khasra Numbers Area (Hectares) Sirinagar 732 0-31-76 (Kandaghat) 761 0-19-77 754 0-46-17 722 0-00-84 723 0-41-98 However, after following the procedure and demarcation of the land in the presence of the land owners, the land situated near and around H.P.P.W.D Rest House, Kandaghat, the detail whereof reads as follows, was sough to be acquired: Village Khasra No. Type of land Area Sirinagar (Kandaghat) 732 Ghasni 0-31-76 741 -Do- 0-49-77 754 -Do- 0-46-17 723/1 -Do- 0-29-74 3. Notification under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued to determine the market value of the land proposed to be acquired. The negotiations were held with the right holders by a Committee of Officers presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. The land owners were apprised that the market value of the land sought to be acquired would be Rs. 17,448/- per bigha along with solatium and additional compulsory acquisition charges. They, however, failed to accept the same and insisted for determination of the market value of the land @ Rs. 9,00,000/- per bigha, however, during the negotiations conducted subsequently, they agreed to determine the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,50,000/- per bigha. The appellant-authority, however, expressed its inability to pay the compensation at such a high rate. Ultimately, the land owners agreed to accept the rates of the acquired land not less than Rs. 3,50,000/- per bigha. 9,00,000/- per bigha, however, during the negotiations conducted subsequently, they agreed to determine the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,50,000/- per bigha. The appellant-authority, however, expressed its inability to pay the compensation at such a high rate. Ultimately, the land owners agreed to accept the rates of the acquired land not less than Rs. 3,50,000/- per bigha. Consequently, notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the land owners and they appeared before the Collector on 23.03.2002 and demanded the payment of compensation @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha. The Collector, however, taken into consideration the rates of different category of land duly approved by the District Collector, Solan situate in Mauza Sirinagar reads as under: Name of Village Description of land Value per bigha Sirinagar Kool-1 Rs. 7,47,061/- Kool-II Rs. 5,45,300/- Bangar-I Rs. 3,76,257/- Bangar-II Rs. 2,39,932/- Bangar-II Rs. 1,19,966/- Bangar Kadim Rs. 65,436/- Ghasni Rs. 16,359/- 4. On the basis of such approved rates of the land in Mauza Sirinagar, the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 32,718/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 38.80/- per square meter and announced the award on 15.05.2002. No structure and trees were standing over the acquired land. 5. The shares of each of the respondents claimants/objectors in the acquired land were determined as under: Khata No. 3/16 min, 3/18 min and 3/20 min. Name of the owner Share Shri Roop Ram ¼ Shri Nand Ram 1/12 Smt. Jamna Devi 5/144 Smt. Kalawati 5/144 Sh. Nek Ram 19/288 Shri Mohan Lal 19/1152 Shri Kamal Mehta 19/1152 Shri Rajesh 19/1152 Smt. Bimla 19/1152 Shri Gopi Chand 19/144 Sh. Khiali Ram 1/6 Sh. Durga Chand 1/6 Khata No. 108/299 Smt. Taranjeet Kaur 97/100 Shri Kanti Sarup 1/100 Shri Beli Ram 1/50 6. The respondents-objectors being dis-satisfied with the award, preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, who forwarded the same to the trial Court for adjudication. It was alleged that compensation of the acquired land, situate in a prime location at Kandaghat, paid to them is highly inadequate. The market value of the land in that area at the relevant time was Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. It was alleged that compensation of the acquired land, situate in a prime location at Kandaghat, paid to them is highly inadequate. The market value of the land in that area at the relevant time was Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. In view of there has been severance of holdings for which no amount of compensation was awarded also stated to have resulted in huge loss to them, irrespective of nature of the acquired land 'Ghasni'. The same having been ideally located for raising construction of commercial and residential building, higher compensation should have been paid to them. 7. The appellant-respondent, however, resisted and contested the compensation on the ground that compensation awarded is absolutely adequate having been determined after taking into consideration the evidence available on record. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether there are grounds for enhancement of the compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, if so, how much? OPP. 2. Relief. 9. Respondents-objectors in support of their claim have examined 15 witnesses in all, whereas, the appellant respondent five. On both sides, sale instances of the land pertaining to the area where the acquired land is situated have also been pressed in service. 10. Learned District Judge on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and also evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the acquired land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and re-determined the same @ Rs. 200/- per square meter vide award under challenge in this appeal and also the cross-objections. 11. The complaint of appellant-respondent is that as per best evidence having come on record in the form of sale instance Ext. RW2/B, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 36/- per square meter. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of RW-4 Smt. Gurdarshan Kaur, who has purchased the land measuring 59 square meters vide this sale deed for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. The appellant-respondent seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned award and re-determine the market value of the land @ Rs. 36/- per square meter. The sale instances produced by the respondents-objectors are stated to be false, forged and fictitious and also being not supported by the vendors and vendees. 2500/-. The appellant-respondent seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned award and re-determine the market value of the land @ Rs. 36/- per square meter. The sale instances produced by the respondents-objectors are stated to be false, forged and fictitious and also being not supported by the vendors and vendees. The evidence produced by the respondents-objectors is stated to be self-contradictory. The sale deeds allegedly seem to be executed intentionally to increase the value of the acquired land. 12. On the other hand, the grouse as brought by the respondents-objectors to this Court is that the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by them amply demonstrate that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 952/- per square meter. The Court below allegedly failed to appreciate the evidence so produced in its right perspective and has committed illegality while determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per square meter. Although, the market value of the land, according to them, is Rs. 952/- per square meter, yet they restrict their claim for payment thereof @ Rs. 500/- per square meter. However, in cross objections No. 249/2004, the respondents-objectors restrict their claim qua enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs. 500/- per square meter, whereas, the cross-objector in cross objections No. 75/05 restrict her claim qua the payment of compensation @ of Rs. 325/- per square meter. 13. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant-respondent has strenuously contended that the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 38.80/- per square meter to Rs. 200/- per square meter is highly excessive, hence not legally sustainable. According to him, the acquired land was not developed one and rather in the nature of 'Ghasni'. Also that, only 37% thereof has been used for housing activities, whereas, remaining 62% left vacant for developmental activities i.e. construction of road, path and green spaces etc., therefore, according to him, atleast 60% deduction on account of developmental charges should have been made while determining the market value. It has also been pointed out that the sale deed Ext. RW2/B, the best piece of evidence should have been relied upon to determine the market value of the land. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that the impugned award is not legally and factually sustainable. 14. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. It has also been pointed out that the sale deed Ext. RW2/B, the best piece of evidence should have been relied upon to determine the market value of the land. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that the impugned award is not legally and factually sustainable. 14. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate has urged that the provision of electricity, existence of railway line and other Government offices P.W.D Rest House nearby, the acquired land itself demonstrate that the area where the acquired land is situated was fully developed and more suitable for construction of Housing Board Colony. It is pointed out that the sale instances are best piece of evidence, so far as the determination of the market value of the acquired land is concerned. It is further contended that though the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 952/- per square meter, however, he restricts his claim only to the extent of Rs. 500/- per square meter. According to Mr. Verma, the compensation should have been awarded at flat rate, taking into consideration the market value of the land on higher side, as per the sale instances produced in evidence. 15. On appreciation of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration the rival submissions, the only question need determination in the present lis is as to whether the compensation awarded by learned lower appellate Court is excessive, as claimed by the appellant-respondent or inadequate as per case of the respondents-objectors. On behalf of appellant-respondent, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in Ashrafi and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5 SCC 527 . It has been urged on the strength of the ratio of this judgment that deduction towards development costs should have been made up to 60%. Similar is the ratio of the judgment again that of apex Court in Shimla Development Authority and others v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.) and another, (1997) 2 SCC 637 . 16. It has been urged on the strength of the ratio of this judgment that deduction towards development costs should have been made up to 60%. Similar is the ratio of the judgment again that of apex Court in Shimla Development Authority and others v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.) and another, (1997) 2 SCC 637 . 16. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents objectors, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Collector v. Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1995 Himachal Pradesh 150 to claim that a sale instance of the land in proximity of the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and proved genuine should be relied upon to determine the market value of the land. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Mehta Ravindraraj Ajitrai and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2051. 17. On behalf of the appellant-respondent much has been said about the sale instances Ext. RW2/B, Ext. RW2/C and Ext. RW2/D. The market value of the land in mauza Sirinagar as per Ext. RW2/B comes to Rs. 43/- per square meter, whereas, as per that Ext. RW2/C Rs. 36/- per square meter and as per Ext. RW2/D Rs. 21/- per square meter. The sale instances Ext. RW2/C and Ext. RW2/D have not even been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector also because he has assessed the compensation @ Rs. 38.80/- per square meter i.e. over and above Rs. 36/- and Rs. 21/- per square meters under these sale deeds. No doubt, the market value of the land in terms of Ext. RW2/B is Rs. 43/- per square meter, however, it is small portion of land purchased thereby by RW-4 Smt. Gursharan Kaur for construction of house. She is not aware as to what was the market value of the land near and around the land she purchased. 18. On the other hand, respondents-objectors have produced in evidence various sale deeds vide which sale of different categories of land has taken place in the locality where the acquired land is situate. The nature of the acquired land is 'Ghasni'. Sale instances produced by the respondents-objectors besides 'Ghasni' pertain to 'Katul Avval' and 'Banjar Kadim'. No evidence qua category of land sold by few of the sale deeds has come on record. The nature of the acquired land is 'Ghasni'. Sale instances produced by the respondents-objectors besides 'Ghasni' pertain to 'Katul Avval' and 'Banjar Kadim'. No evidence qua category of land sold by few of the sale deeds has come on record. Therefore, to discuss all the sale instances and evidence in support thereof produced by way of examining the so called vendors and vendees would be nothing but merely a futile exercise. Only sale deeds Ext. PW5/A and Ext. PW9/A pertain to the sale of land 'Ghasni' in nature. Out of these sale deeds Ext. PW5/A is dated 24.06.1998, which is not in proximity to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 07.05.1999 prior to issuance thereof. As per this sale deed, market value of land 'Ghasni' in nature was Rs. 362/- per square meter. Another instance of the sale of 'Ghasni' land is Ext. PW9/A, however, dated 20.11.2002 i.e. much after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, hence hardly of any help to the respondents-objectors. The remaining sale deeds Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW6/A, Ext. PW8/A and Ext. PW12/A though, reveal that the market value of the land sold thereby is on higher side ranging between Rs. 452/- to Rs. 952/- per square meter. The nature of the land sold thereby, however, is either of superior quality or there finds no mention about it. Therefore, when the sale instance of 'Ghasni' land viz. the nature of the land acquired is there on record and as per the same the market value of the land sold thereby is Rs. 362/- per square meter, at the most compensation payable to the respondents-objectors could have been determined @ of Rs. 362/- per square meter. Learned District Judge, however has determined the same @ of Rs. 200/- per square meter. 19. In view of the claim of the appellant-respondent that the acquired land being not developed one and only a meager area thereof i.e. 37% was used for raising construction, whereas, the remaining left vacant for being used towards other developmental activities, learned District Judge though has not discussed about the deduction required to be made towards developmental costs, however, making deduction of 60% from Rs. 362/-, the market value of 'Ghasni' land per square meter, the same comes to around Rs. 216/- per square meter, which is nearer to the figure of Rs. 362/-, the market value of 'Ghasni' land per square meter, the same comes to around Rs. 216/- per square meter, which is nearer to the figure of Rs. 200/- per square meter determined by learned District Judge. The claim of the appellant-respondent that the sale deed Ext. PW2/B was one of the best piece of evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land is without any substance for the reason that firstly, the category of land sold thereby is not mentioned, secondly, the same pertains to small piece of land measuring 59 square meter as against the acquired land the area whereof is 1-70-52 hectares and thirdly, RW-4 has purchased the land thereby for construction of house and she even is not aware of as to what was the cost of the land in the locality. On the other hand, sale deed Ext. PW5/A, an instance of sale of land 'Ghasni' in nature available on record and thereby 210 square meters land sold, it would not be improper to place reliance thereon. Learned District Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality or irregularity in determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per square meter. The market value of the land as was determined by Land Acquisition Collector i.e. Rs. 38.80/- per square meter, was highly inadequate and even not in accordance with the market value of the category of land sold in the locality in proximity to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. So far as deduction required to be made from the market value so determined, it is worthwhile to mention here that since learned District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs. 200/- per square meter as against Rs. 362/- per square meter, therefore, has taken care of this aspect of the matter and as such, the appellant-respondent cannot be said to have any grievance in this behalf. 20. Now, if coming to the cross objections preferred by two sets of respondents i.e. respondents No. 1 to 12 and respondent No. 13, although, the market value of the acquired land has been claimed to be determined @ Rs. 952/- per square meter, yet respondents No. 1 to 12 restrict their claim @ Rs. 500/- per square meter, whereas, respondent No. 13 @ Rs. 325/- per square meter. 952/- per square meter, yet respondents No. 1 to 12 restrict their claim @ Rs. 500/- per square meter, whereas, respondent No. 13 @ Rs. 325/- per square meter. In support of their case, reliance has been placed on the sale deeds Ext. PW2/A and Ext. PW8/A and also Ext. PW12/A. No doubt, all these sale instances are in proximity to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, it is significant to note that the nature of the land sold thereby did not figure therein. Otherwise also, the evidence as has come on record by way of testimonies of the vendors and vendees differs from each other qua material aspects i.e. potentiality and similarity etc., of the land sold thereby viz-a-viz the acquired land. The evidence on record is also contradictory in nature. Therefore, the respondents-objectors have miserably failed to prove that they area entitled to the award of compensation with regard to acquired land @ Rs. 500/- per square meter or @ Rs. 325/- per square meter. On the other hand, as discussed supra, the determination of the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per square meter is absolutely legal and valid and need no interference by this Court. 21. In view of what has been stated herein above, this appeal as well as cross objections fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is affirmed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Appeal dismissed.