JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. For public purpose, namely, construction of Una-Talwara railway line, land belonging to the claimants came to be acquired with the publication of Notification dated 31.10.2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition, in terms of award dated 04.12.2001, No. 24, determined the market value of the acquired land ranging from Rs.640/- to Rs.24005/- depending upon the various category of land. In all, 0-94-93 hectares of land, came to be acquired. 2. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petition s under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land, which stand decided in terms of impugned award dated 26.07.2011, passed by Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Land Reference No.58 of 2009, titled as Prakash Chand through LRs and others Versus The Land Acquisition Collector, Railways, Una & another, alongwith connected reference petitions, in terms whereof, the market value of the acquired land stands redetermined @ Rs.76,000/- per Kanal, irrespective of the classification and category of land. 3. Both the beneficiary and the claimants are aggrieved of the impugned award. 4. To establish their respective claims, both the claimants and the beneficiary examined one witness each. In support of their claim, claimants have produced on record sale deeds (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4) and award dated 27.02.2010 (Ex.P-13) pertaining to Land Reference No.19 of 2005, titled as Bhagat Ram Versus LAC & others, whereby land came to be acquired in Revenue Estate Basal, wherein the market value came to be redetermined at Rs.75,000/- per Kanal, irrespective of its classification. 5. On the other hand, beneficiary has placed on record sale deeds (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3). 6. Now if one peruses the sale deeds produced on record by the beneficiary as also the claimants, one finds that they are not reflective of the true and correct market value of the prices prevalent at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Sale deeds (Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-3) pertain to the years 1992 and 1998. Whereas, sale deeds Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4 pertain to the years 2001 and 2000. In terms of the later sale deed, small chunk of land came to be sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Sale deeds (Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-3) pertain to the years 1992 and 1998. Whereas, sale deeds Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4 pertain to the years 2001 and 2000. In terms of the later sale deed, small chunk of land came to be sold for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. On the other hand, sale deeds (Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3) also pertain to small chunk of land, whereby land came to be sold for a sum of Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/-, prior to initiation of the acquisition proceedings. There is nothing on record to establish the proximity and similarity of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale deeds. 7. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the awards need to be interfered, on the asking of either of the parties or not? Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view, that the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land is absolutely just, fair and reasonable. 8. It is not in dispute before this Court, as is also evident from the material placed on record, that the entire acquired land stood fully utilized for the public purpose. Railway line stood constructed over the entire acquired land. 9. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 10. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. 11. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Railway line stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land. 12. Now what is that real market value of the acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay. 13. 12. Now what is that real market value of the acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay. 13. The market value of a property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value. {Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250 , Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 447 }. 14. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568 ). 15. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors . [(2005) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. & Ors . [(2005) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 16. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal [ (1989) 2 SCC 329 ], the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. 17. Significantly the Court below itself re-determined the market value by referring to and relying upon the award dated 27.09.2010, passed in Land Reference No.43/2008, titled as Sita Ram & others Versus LAC and another. 18. What is important is that the said award pertains to the very same Up-Mohal i.e. Thakurdwara/Basal, whereby the land in question also came to be acquired for the very same public purpose. This award was placed by the parties on the file of the Court below. The similarity of the acquired land with that of the land acquired in terms of the said award as also its potentiality with regard to its use and nature was never disputed before the Court below. As such, Court below rightly re-determined the market value by seeking reliance thereupon. The potentiality and the advantage of the acquired land with that of the exemplar award was never disputed. To this extent no factual error can be highlighted even before this Court. As such, impugned award cannot be said to be erroneous, perverse or illegal, warranting interference by this Court. 19. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Versus State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 , Apex Court has clarified that onus to establish the money spent or damage caused to the property is on the owner, which in the instant case has not been established by any means. 19. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Versus State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 , Apex Court has clarified that onus to establish the money spent or damage caused to the property is on the owner, which in the instant case has not been established by any means. What is the effect of that severance of land also remains un-established. How and in what manner the productivity of their land stands diminished, remains un-disclosed. As such, on this count no claim for award of compensation is sustainable. In this view of the fact, it is held that though the reasoning adopted by the Court below, on other points, is unsustainable in law, but nonetheless the amount re-determined with respect to the acquired land, irrespective of its classification and category cannot be held to be illegal, erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. It cannot be said that the market value stands unjustifiably re-determined and that the impugned award is illegal, unfair, unjust or inequitable. 20. The claimants are poor villagers whose land came to be acquired way back in the year 2000. They have been litigating before various Courts for adjudication of their rights. It is high time that all litigation must come to an end at some stage. Poor villagers, who have been deprived of their land have been put to great disadvantage. They are villagers and not businessmen, who can re-invest money in the form of real estate. In some manner or other they stand deprived of their vocation. Hardship caused to them cannot be compensated in terms of money save and except that they get a fair market price. 21. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous. Also no case for enhancement of the market value arises. As such, present appeals stand dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.