JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present RFAs are filed against the same award passed by learned District Judge (F) Shimla in consolidated manner in Ref. Petition No.22-S/4 of 08/03 title Damodar Dass Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, Ref. Petition No.23-S/4 of 08/03 title Jakhar & Another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Another and Ref. Petition No.24-S/4 of 08/03 title Pyare Lal & Others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Another and Ref. Petition No.25-S/4 of 08/03. RFA No. 56 of 2009, RFA No. 57 of 2009 and RFA No. 58 of 2009 are consolidated together and disposed of vide same decision in order to avoid conflicting decisions. Brief facts of the case: 2. Reference petitions filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 pleaded therein that their land was acquired for construction of Thana-Daroti-Tikkar link road vide Notification No. PW(B)(7)1-226/96 dated 06.02.1998 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Notification under Section 6 & 7 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 issued on 11.05.1999 vide No. PW-BA (7)1-226/98. Notices under Section 9 were issued to interest holders on 05.12.2000. Land Acquisition Collector passed award No.I on dated 31.01.2002. Learned Collector awarded compensation as per classification of land as follows: (1) Kiar Doyam Rs.25,542.60 per bigha (2) Bakhal Rs.13,793.00 per bigha (3) Karali Awal Rs.6,130.20 per bigha (4) Karali Doyam Rs.2,554.20 per bigha. Learned Collector held that there is no structure, no tenants over acquired land. Learned Collector held that there are some non fruit and fruit bearing trees over acquired land and supplementary award would be granted after receipt of evaluation report from competent authority. 3. Learned District Judge (Forest) Shimla H.P. assessed market value of acquired land as Rs.300/- (Three hundred) per sq. metre. Learned District Judge further directed that land owners would be entitled to solatium @30% on the market value as assessed above and learned District Judge further directed that additional solatium charges @12% per annum on the market value as assessed above for the period and from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 06.02.1998 to the date of Collector Award or w.e.f. date of taking of possession of the acquired land whichever is earlier granted. Learned District Judge also granted interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of notification i.e. 06.02.1998 for one year. Learned District Judge also granted interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of notification i.e. 06.02.1998 for one year. Learned District Judge also granted interest @15% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of expiry of the period of one year till date of payment in the Court. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Land Acquisition Collector and others filed present RFAs. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether RFAs filed by the appellants are liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of RFAs? 2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 6. PW-1 Damodar Dass has stated that their land was acquired for construction of link road and notification was issued on 06.02.1998. He has stated that thereafter notifications under Section 6, 7 & 9 also issued. He has also stated that 21 plants of Apple and 5 plants of non-fruit trees are situated over suit land as per M.B. receipts Ext. PW-1/A to PW-1/E. He has stated that copy of Jamabandi is Ext. PW-1/F. He has further stated that at the time of acquirement of land the value of apple trees was Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) per tree and value of non-fruit trees was Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) per tree. He has further stated that when the land was acquired at that time value of land was Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lac) per bigha. He has further stated that Khangta Tikkar is situated nearby the acquired land and that value of barren land at Khangta Tikkar is Rs. 2,81,000/- (Two lac eighty one thousand) per bigha. He has further stated that sale deeds are Ext. PW-1/G, Ext. PW-1/H, Ext. PW-1/J, Ext. PW-1/K & Ext. PW-1/L. He has stated that sale deeds of area of acquired land are Ext. PW-1/M & Ext. PW-1/N. He has further stated that Tikkar market is situated adjacent to the acquired land and office of Sub Tehsil, Forest, School and office of HPPWD Department are also situated. He has further stated that Land Acquisition Collector did not award proper compensation. He has stated that adequate compensation be awarded. He has denied suggestion that acquired land is situated at a far distance of Village Tikkar. He has further stated that Land Acquisition Collector did not award proper compensation. He has stated that adequate compensation be awarded. He has denied suggestion that acquired land is situated at a far distance of Village Tikkar. He has denied suggestion that adequate compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. He has further stated that he did not assess the value of trees from Horticulture Department. 7. PW-2 Sh. Ram Lok has stated that they are six brothers and sisters. He has stated that he alienated the land measuring 3 bighas 3 biswas for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Two lac eighty one thousand) per bigha. He has proved the documents Ext. PW-1/G, PW-1/H, PW-1/J, PW-1/K, PW-1/L as vendor. He has stated that his land was barren land. He has stated that acquired land is better land. 8. PW-3 Partap Singh Patwari, has stated that he has brought the summoned record. He has stated that document Ext. PW-3/A is correct as per original record. He has denied suggestion that he has prepared documents contrary to factual position. 9. PW-4 Pyare Lal has stated that his land is also acquired. He has stated that there were 23 trees of apple but no adequate compensation was granted to him. He has stated that market value of the acquired land is Rs.2,60,000/- (Two lac sixty thousand) per bigha. He has stated that Land Acquisition Collector did not properly assess the market value of the acquired land. 10. RW-1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar, JE HPPWD Rohroo Division has stated that link road was constructed. He has stated that Thana Village is situated at a distance of 7 Km. from Tikkar. He has stated that there is no dispensary in Thana Village. He has stated that adequate compensation awarded to the land owners. 11. Following documentaries evidence adduced by the parties: (1) Ext.PW-1/A to Ext.PW-1/E are M.B. receipts of trees. (2) Ext.PW-1/F is copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97. (3) Ext. PW-1/G is sale deed dated 16.12.1999. (4) Ext. PW-1/H, Ext. PW- 1/J, Ext. PW-1/K, Ext. PW-1/L, Ext. PW-1/M, Ext. PW-1/N are copies of sale deeds. (5) Ext. PW-3/A is Khaka Dasti Patwar Halka Kashani, Teshil Tikkar, Distt. Shimla. (6) Ext. PW-4/A & Ext. PW-4/ B are copies of receipts. (7) Ext. RW-2/A is copy of approved rates. (8) Ext. RW-2/B is copy of award of Land Acquisition Collector. (9) Ext. PW- 1/J, Ext. PW-1/K, Ext. PW-1/L, Ext. PW-1/M, Ext. PW-1/N are copies of sale deeds. (5) Ext. PW-3/A is Khaka Dasti Patwar Halka Kashani, Teshil Tikkar, Distt. Shimla. (6) Ext. PW-4/A & Ext. PW-4/ B are copies of receipts. (7) Ext. RW-2/A is copy of approved rates. (8) Ext. RW-2/B is copy of award of Land Acquisition Collector. (9) Ext. RW-2/C is copy of statement showing compensation for each holding for Village Thana Sub Tehsil Tikkar Distt. Shimla (H.P.). 12. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector that learned District Judge (Forest) did not award compensation as per classification of land and awarded compensation as per uniform rate and on this ground appeals be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that land was acquired for construction of link road i.e. Behdhar Thana Daroti Tikkar link road in Village Thana. It is well settled law that when acquired land is to be used as a single unit for construction of road then compensation should be awarded as per uniform rate. See AIR 1988 SC 1652 title Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona. Also see 2004 (4) SCC 79 title R.C. Jain (deceased) through LRs Vs. DDA & Others. Also see 2003 (4) SCC 481 title Ravinder Narain and Another Vs. Union of India. Also see 2005 (12) SCC 564 title Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh & Others. Also see 1998 (1) SLC 41 HP High Court DB, title Lalit Kumar and another Vs. State of HP. 13. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants that learned District Judge (Forest) has awarded excessive compensation is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under Land Acquisition Act 1894 the Court should take into consideration following facts: (1) Market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 sub-section (1). (2) Damage sustained by the person interested by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof. (2) Damage sustained by the person interested by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof. (3) Damage if any sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector's taking possession of land by reason of severing such land from his other land. (4) Damage if any sustained by person interested at the time of Collector's taking possession of land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property movable or immovable in any other manner or his earnings. (5) If in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business the reasonable expenses if any incidental to such change. (6) The damage if any bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between time of publication of declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (7) The Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such marketvalue for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. (8) The Court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on such market-value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 14. It is proved on record that link road is constructed in Village Thana. It is also proved on record that Village Tikkar is adjacent to Village Thana. It is also proved on record that Village Thana Bag is situated at a considerable distance and also situated at a considerable height. Learned District Judge (Forest) has assessed market value on the basis of sale deeds Ext.PW-1/G, Ext. PW-1/H, Ext. PW-1/J, Ext. PW-1/K, Ext. PW-1/L placed on record. It is held that no infirmity has been committed by the learned District Judge (Forest) while assessing the value of the acquired land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 15. Even Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has disposed of RFA No.237 of 2008 titled LAC & Another. Vs. PW-1/L placed on record. It is held that no infirmity has been committed by the learned District Judge (Forest) while assessing the value of the acquired land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. 15. Even Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has disposed of RFA No.237 of 2008 titled LAC & Another. Vs. Krishan Lal and others, RFA No.238 of 2008 titled as titled LAC & Another Vs. Jai Dayal and others, RFA No.239 of 2008 titled LAC & Another Vs. Tulsi Ram and another, RFA No.240 of 2008 titled LAC & Another Vs. Rameshwar Dass and RFA No.241 of 2008 as titled LAC & Another Vs. Parshotam and Another on dated 21.04.2009 relating to same project and Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has affirmed the award passed by the District Judge. There is no evidence on record that decision of Hon’ble High Court announced on 21.04.2009 is modified or set-aside by Hon’ble Apex Court of India. In view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the award passed by learned District Judge (Forest). It is held that award passed by learned District Judge (Forest) is in accordance with oral as well as documentaries evidence placed on record and is in consonance with law. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above all RFAs are dismissed. Award passed by learned District Judge (Forest) Shimla affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Judge (Forest) along with certified copy of decision be sent back forthwith. Certified copy of decision be placed in RFA No.57 & RFA No. 58 of 2009. All RFAs are disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.