ORDER : 1. Present regular first appeal is filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 against the award passed by learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan on 30.9.2006 in land reference case No. 05-LAC/4 of 2005 titled Uma Dutt vs. HPPWD. Brief facts of the case 2. Appellants for construction of Damaka-Di-Johadi Bagthan road proposed to acquire land situated at two villages i.e. village Thakrow measuring 1.08 bighas and village Tankan measuring 3.08 bighas in Tehsil Pachhad District Sirmaur Himachal Pradesh. It is pleaded that notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 28.12.2002 and was published in official gazette on dated 3.1.2003 and award No. 9 of 2004 dated 22.4.2004 was passed by learned Land Acquisition Officer and market rate of acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) per bigha for all categories of land. 3. Land owners demanded Rs. 3 lac (Rupees three lac only) per bigha as value of land and reference petitions under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 were filed before learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan (H.P.). Learned District Judge framed issues and recorded evidence and after hearing both parties announced the award on 30.9.2006 and enhanced compensation of acquired land to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lac eighty thousand only) per bigha irrespective of kind and category of land. Learned District Judge also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 28.12.2002 w.e.f. date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 to 22.4.2004. Learned District Judge also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% per annum on the market value and interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 28.12.2002 for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount is paid/deposited. 4. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and Court also perused entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in RFA No. 1 of 2007:- 1. Whether RFA No. 1 of 2007 titled HPPWD through Land Acquisition Collector and others vs. Uma Dutt and others is covered by decision given by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 5.9.2013 in RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011? 2. Relief. Whether RFA No. 1 of 2007 titled HPPWD through Land Acquisition Collector and others vs. Uma Dutt and others is covered by decision given by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 5.9.2013 in RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011? 2. Relief. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons 6. It is proved on record that other RFAs i.e. RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011 were disposed of by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 5.9.2013 qua the same award No. 9 of 2004. It is proved on record that inadvertently present RFA No. 1 of 2007 was not listed before the Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. by Registry and same could not be disposed of by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on the same date. 7. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011 relating to same award on 5.9.2013 remanded the cases back to the Court below for consideration afresh with direction that limited opportunity of leading evidence would be afforded to parties. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 5.9.2013 directed District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan that learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan would afford an opportunity to claimants as well as to the State to lead evidence only on question of nature of land acquired and sale transaction so placed on record by State. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. further directed that it would be open to the claimants as well as to the State to lead evidence only on these points. Hon’ble High Court further directed that since the case pertains to the year 2003 learned District Judge would make an endeavour to decide the case expeditiously and preferably within six months. Hon’ble High Court further directed parties to appear before District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan on 23.9.2013 and further directed Registry to immediately send the record back to the Court concerned. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. disposed of all appeals cited supra relating to award No. 9 of 2004 passed by Land Acquisition Officer. 8. Hon’ble High Court further directed parties to appear before District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan on 23.9.2013 and further directed Registry to immediately send the record back to the Court concerned. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. disposed of all appeals cited supra relating to award No. 9 of 2004 passed by Land Acquisition Officer. 8. Keeping in view the fact that present appeal is also filed relating to same award i.e. award No. 9 of 2004, in order to avoid conflicting award and in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se the parties and in the ends of justice it is expedient that present RFA should also be governed with decision of RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 (Relief) 9. In view of findings on point No. 1 and in view of the fact that present RFA is covered by decision given by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011 it is ordered that present RFA No. 1 of 2007 will also be governed by decision announced in RFA Nos. 163 of 2006 to 172 of 2006, 174 of 2006 and 494 of 2011 and consequently compensation amount awarded by competent authority in aforesaid RFAs will also be deemed awarded in RFA No. 1 of 2007. Parties are left to bear their own costs. RFA No. 1 of 2007 is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.