JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. The present appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 21.4.2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. in land reference No. 35/2005. The Cross objections bearing No. 317/2010 have also been preferred for enhancement of the compensation of amount. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) was issued on 21.6.2002. It was published in the newspapers “Ajeet Samachar” and “Dainik Veer Partap” on 7.8.2002. It was also published in H.P. Rajpatra on 15.7.2002. Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act was issued on 1.7.2003. Notice under Section 9 of the Act was also issued. 3. The learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land as follows: Sr.No. Land under acquisition Rate per sqm/Centar Total compensation Classification Area (in hect.) 1 Barani-Awwal 1-37-53 888.31 1,21,48,162.00 2 Bajan Kadeem/Karateer/Banjer Jadeed 10-80-84 76.94 83,15,983.00 3 Gair Mumkin 0-19-21 6.16 11,833.00 Total Land 12-37-58 Total Value 2,04,75,978.00 4. The claimants, feeling aggrieved, by the award No. 1 of 2004, dated 1.12.2004, filed Reference Petition No. 35 of 2005 for enhancement of the compensation before the learned District Judge, Una. The learned District Judge, Una awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per marla with statutory benefits. The HPHUDA has challenged the award dated 21.4.2010. Hence this appeal and cross-objections. 5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that there was no tangible evidence available on record justifying the enhancement of the compensation. According to him, undue reliance has been placed on award No. 1 of 2004 rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector. He lastly contended that deductions should have been made towards development charges. On the other hand, Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has argued that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per marla. The learned Reference Court has failed to take into consideration the sale deeds and other relevant evidence. 6. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the award and records of the case carefully. 7. PW-1 Ganesh Chand has proved map Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2 Hans Raj led his evidence by filing affidavit. 50,000/- per marla. The learned Reference Court has failed to take into consideration the sale deeds and other relevant evidence. 6. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the award and records of the case carefully. 7. PW-1 Ganesh Chand has proved map Ext. PW-1/A. 8. PW-2 Hans Raj led his evidence by filing affidavit. It is averred in the affidavit that the land has been acquired by the Housing Board for the construction of housing colony. The land is Barani awwal and they used to cultivate the same. This land touches housing board colony which is in existence for the last 35 years. Many private colonies, including Mount Carmel School, Office of HPSEB and commercial complexes are in close proximity of the acquired building. This area also abuts local road. The State Highway Una-Nangal is also in close proximity. This area is also near the railway line. The market value of the land was not less than 50,000/- per marla. There were lot of trees on the acquired land. 9. RW-1 R.C.Bhatia has led his evidence by filing affidavit. According to him, the acquired land was uneven. The acquired land was Kharetar and Banjar Kadeem and no cultivation was being done prior to the acquisition. The acquired land is away from the existing colony and government offices. Huge sum is required for development of the land. 50% of the land would go waste for providing roads, paths, sewerages, green spaces etc. Moreover 11% of the acquired land is waste land and cannot be put to any use. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the land has been acquired for the extension of the housing colony. He has also admitted that Mohal Khurd and Rakkar are adjoining. He also admitted that the State Highway is near the acquired land. He also admitted that in the Housing Board, all facilities are available. Volunteered that they have provided the facilities. 10. RW-2 Ravi Kumar has proved certified sale deed dated 5.1.1990 vide Ext. RW-2/A. He also proved sale deeds Ext. RW-2/B dated 13.10.2004, RW-2/C dated 13.10.2004 and RW-2/D dated 24.11.2003. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know about the classification, location and valuation of the land. 11. According to the claimants, the land is situated near the Power Sub-station and official residential colony of HPSEB. RW-2/A. He also proved sale deeds Ext. RW-2/B dated 13.10.2004, RW-2/C dated 13.10.2004 and RW-2/D dated 24.11.2003. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know about the classification, location and valuation of the land. 11. According to the claimants, the land is situated near the Power Sub-station and official residential colony of HPSEB. The Mount Carmel School, Office of HPSEB and commercial complexes are in close proximity of the acquired building. This area also abuts local road. The State Highway Una-Nangal is also in close proximity. This area is also near the railway line. 12. According to the sale deed Ext. RW-2/A dated 5.1.1990, executed by Sh. Jeewan Kumar in favour of Shesh Mani Tripathi, land measuring 0-08-43 hectares of Up-Mohal Rakkar was sold for Rs. 12,500/-. As per sale deed Ext. RW-2/B dated 13.10.2004, Chhajju Ram had sold land measuring 0-05-80 hectares of revenue estate Tabba in favour of Prem Chand for Rs.28,000/-. As per Ext. RW-2/C sale deed dated 13.10.2004, Shamsher Singh sold land measuring 0-05-61 hectares of land in revenue estate Tabba in favour of Prem Chand for Rs. 27,000/-. Ext. RW-1/D is the copy of sale deed dated 24.11.2003 whereby Ujjagar Singh had sold land measuring 0-42-27 hectares of revenue estate Tabba in favour of Rajinder Bali for Rs. 1,55,000/-. 13. The land is situated in the fast developing and upcoming area of Rakkar where the facilities of road, marketing and telecommunication were already present. The amount of compensation should be just and adequate. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.6.2002. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs.883.31 per square metre for Barani Awwal, Rs. 76.94 per square meter for Banjar Kadeem/Kharetar/Banjar Jadeed and Rs. 6.16 per square meter for Gair Mumkin land in RFA Nos. 67/2011 alongwith analogous matters. The learned Reference Court has awarded Rs.883.31/- per square meter for Barani Awwal, as compensation to the claimants. This compensation ought to have been reduced taking into consideration 20% development charges since roads, drains etc. were to be constructed but the Court relying upon the sale deeds proved on record holds that the claimants are entitled to 20% increase in the market value. The learned Reference Court ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. This compensation ought to have been reduced taking into consideration 20% development charges since roads, drains etc. were to be constructed but the Court relying upon the sale deeds proved on record holds that the claimants are entitled to 20% increase in the market value. The learned Reference Court ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 883.31 per square meter to the claimants also since land acquired was under the same notification, irrespective of the nature of the land, since the land acquired was for the purpose of construction of housing colony. All these matters were required to be clubbed to maintain clarity of facts. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Jugal Kishore that the land acquired was Barani Awwal and they used to cultivate the same. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA No. 67/2011 and analogous matters with declaration that claimants would be entitled to compensation at par with the claimants in RFA No. 67/2011 and analogous matters i.e. at the rate of Rs.883.31 per square metre instead of Rs.3,000/- per marla, with all statutory benefits, in order to maintain equities as well as uniformity when the land acquired is from the same Mohal Bharolia Khurd and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.6.2002. Cross-objections are disposed of without modifying the Award of the learned Reference Court dated 21.4.2010. The Award is upheld for the reasons stated herein above.