JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The aforementioned appeals arise out of a common award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in land reference petitions, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The lands of the petitioners were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector under Award No.49, of 23.6.1998. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation for the lands of the petitioner brought under acquisition. Their lands are situated in Mohal Chanwari, Illaqua Pachhit, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The land of the petitioners were acquired for the construction of Mandi-Kanwal road. On the basis of the one year average price of land of adjoining Mohal Vair, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation for the lands of the petitioners brought under the acquisition and located in the adjoining Mohal Chanwari, whereby market value of Barani-I/Gair Mumkin Makan was assessed at the rate of 5650 per bigha, Bagicha Barani-II, at the rate of 5650/- per bigha, Bagicha Barani Faldar at the rate of Rs.9050/- per bigha, Banjar Kadim at the rate of Rs.1700/- per bigha and Khadatar at the rate of Rs.1600/- per bigha. 3. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was subjected to impeachment by way of the land holders/land owners preferring reference petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned District Judge, Mandi, who assigned them for adjudication to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi. In the impugned award the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, on a consideration of the material as laid before him had enhanced compensation as awarded to the landowners by the Land Acquisition Collector. The enhancement of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge Mandi, was begotten by reliance upon the average of one year average price of the adjoining three mohals all of which were concluded to be contiguous to each other hence he came to award uniform rates of compensation for all categories of lands irrespective of their classification. 4. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the Awards rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi and consequently, by way of the present appeals has hence challenged them before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length. 6. 4. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved by the Awards rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi and consequently, by way of the present appeals has hence challenged them before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length. 6. The reason as propagated by the learned Deputy Advocate General for ingraining the impugned award of the learned Additional District Judge, with the vice of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, stands anvilled upon the fact of Mohal Chanwari where the land brought under acquisition is situate, while standing situated at a distance of 7 kilometers from Mandi Town, whereas lands in adjoining Mohals of Manyana and Saniyardi being nearer and more proximate to Mandi town, as such, in the reckoning of and taking into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, the one year average price of lands existing therein for assessing compensation qua lands brought under acquisition in Mohal Chanwari, located improximately, vis-à-vis Mohals Maniyana and Saniyardi to Mandi town, was inappropriate. 7. This Court has delved into the entire material on record wherefrom it has disinterred the factum of, of three Mohals, two Mohals i.e. Vair and Maniyana whose one year average price of the lands stood reckoned besides taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, along with the average five years' price of land in Mohal Chanwari, averaging whereof led to a determination by him of the compensation amount payable to the respondents herein being in closer vicinity to Mandi town vis-à-vis Mohal Chanwari, where the lands of the petitioners are situated. It is apparent on a reading of the impugned award that even the Land Acquisition Collector in his award had concluded qua the five years average price of land of Mohal Chanwari being inadequate as such he relied upon the one year average price of land of adjoining Mohal Vair, for the purpose of assessment and determination of market value of the lands of the petitioners located in Mohal Chanwari. However, in the said exercise resorted to by the Land Acquisition Collector, for determination of compensation for the lands of the petitioners located in Mohal Chanwari, it was concluded by the learned Additional District Judge that neither fair, just, nor reasonable compensation has come to be hence assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, inasmuch as for various categories of land he had assessed abysmally low rates of compensation in favour of the petitioners/landholders. The learned Additional District Judge has hence while proceeding to assess just, fair and reasonable compensation for the lands of the petitioners located in mohal Chanwari, had taken into consideration five years average price of land located in Mohal Chanwari and one year average price of lands situated in Mohal Vair and Maniyana, which latter mohals adjoin Mohal Chanwari as such ultimately, the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi assessed just, fair and reasonable compensation payable to the petitioner for their lands brought under acquisition. 8. There is no controversy interse the parties at contest of Mohals Vair, Saniyardi, Maniyana and Chanwari being contiguous to each others. The fact of five years average price of land in Mohal Chanwari where the lands of the petitioners stand located being abysmally low besides inadequate to beget determination of reasonable compensation stands uncontroverted. The record also displays qua the five years average price of land in Mohal Chanwari, not begetting any escalation rather its continuing to be pegged at a nadir whereas the one year average price of lands located in the Mohals adjoining Mohal Chanwari, inasmuch, as in Mohals Saniyardi and Maniyana displaying a steep hike, which lack of escalation in the price of land located in Mohal Chanwari wherein the lands of the petitioners are located, viz.a.viz the escalation and hike in the price of the lands in its adjoining Mohals, also appears to stand begotten by the fact of hence sale transactions standing effected in adjoining Mohals whereas such sale transactions remained uneffected in Mohal Chanwari. Consequently, sequelling the lowness in the one year average price of land in Mohal Chanwari and escalation in the one year average price of land in the Mohals adjoining it. Consequently, sequelling the lowness in the one year average price of land in Mohal Chanwari and escalation in the one year average price of land in the Mohals adjoining it. If the aforesaid reason is to be attributed by this Court for the inadequacy of the one year average price of land in Mohal Chanwari and adequacy of or the reasonableness of the one year average price of land in adjoining Mohals, the petitioners ought not to be discriminated or injustice ought not be perpetrated upon them nor can they be when their lands are located in contiguity to lands in adjoining Mohals, financially impoverished by assessing a painfully low amount of compensation for the reason merely of no sale transaction reflecting a genuine prevalent market value of land in commensuration to the market value of lands located in adjoining Mohals having taken place therein especially when for lack of occurrence of sale transactions, in Mohal Chanwari no fault can stand attributed to them. Rather, it is to be endeavoured by this Court as aptly done by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi to concert to adjudge a reasonable, just and fair compensation for the lands of the petitioners on the strength of as aptly done by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, the one year average price of the lands located in adjoining Mohals, to Mohal Chanwari. Such an exercise as undertaken would undo injustice to the petitioners which has come to be perpetrated upon them by the Land Acquisition Collector constituted in his ignoring the fact of even when five years average price of land in Mohal Chanwari was concluded by him to be inadequate, his reckoning the one year average price of land in Mohal Vair for assessing compensation for the lands of the petitioners hence untenably leaving aside or omitting to take into consideration the one year average price of lands in the Mohals adjoining it i.e. of Saniyardi and Maniyana, which rather had noticed a hike and escalation in the one year average price of the lands located therein merely on the strength of sale transactions having occurred their and theirs standing not occurred in Mohal Chanwari, which omission has obviously occasioned a gross and palpable under assessment of compensation in favour of the petitioners/landowners for their lands as brought under acquisition. Consequently, in the learned Additional District Judge while applying a just, fair and reasonable parameter has as such awarded just, fair, reasonable and equitable compensation amount for the lands of the petitioners/landowners. As a result, also when he has assessed a uniform rate of compensation for various categories of land brought under acquisition his award cannot be faulted. It is significant that the purpose of acquisition for all categories of land is common to each of them. Therefore, when each of the categories/classifications of land came to be subjected to acquisition for a common and single purpose the classification borne by each of the categories of land subjected to acquisition, pales into insignificance or is irrelevant, as well as fades into oblivion especially on theirs being acquired or brought under acquisition. For reiteration such classification loses its relevance as the lands on their acquisition besides on their being ultimately subjected to use for the purpose for which they stood acquired, acquire a uniform potentiality or a uniform classification. Consequently assessment of compensation at a uniform rate for different classifications/categories of land as done by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi while upsetting the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, impugned before it, who had awarded variant rates of compensation for different categories/classifications of land, does not constitute any palpable or manifest legal error necessitating interference by this Court. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly and the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi is upheld.