JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these regular first appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These regular first appeals are directed against the common judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P., dated 17.1.2009 in Ref. Petition Nos. 78 of 2002, 74 of 2005, 82 of 2002, 76 of 2005, 79 of 2002, 75 of 2005, 83 of 2002, 77 of 2005, 81 of 2002, 132 of 2005, 80 of 2002, 133 of 2005, 89 of 2002, 134 of 2005, 88 of 2002, 135 of 2005, 87 of 2002, 137 of 2005, 84 of 2002, 136 of 2005, 85 of 2002, 138 of 2005, 86 of 2002, 139 of 2005. 3. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of these regular first appeals are that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 7.12.2000. It was published in the Rajpatra on 12.12.2000. It was also published in the Newspapers “Amar Ujala” and “The Tribune” on 14.12.2000 and 15.12.2000, respectively. Public notice was issued on 8.1.2001. Consequently, notification under Sections 6 & 7 of the Act were issued on 23.4.2001 and published in Rajpatra on 12.5.2001. It was also published in two newspapers i.e. “Divya Himachal” and “Indian Express” on 2.5.2001. Notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the interested holders on 12.7.2001. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a flat rate of Rs. 3,25, 528.37/- per bigha to the respondents claimants on 12.10.2001. 4. The claimants, feeling aggrieved by the award dated 12.10.2001, filed reference petitions before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, Distt. Mandi, H.P. According to them, they were given inadequate compensation by the learned Collector. The value of their land was Rs. 25,00,000/- per bigha. The land acquired from the claimants would be submerged in the water by Kol Dam. The land adjacent to Sundernagar Tatapani road is rich in minerals. The sale transactions of Mohal Dhawal, which land is not similar to the acquired land was wrongly considered to work out the market value of the land by the Collector. 25,00,000/- per bigha. The land acquired from the claimants would be submerged in the water by Kol Dam. The land adjacent to Sundernagar Tatapani road is rich in minerals. The sale transactions of Mohal Dhawal, which land is not similar to the acquired land was wrongly considered to work out the market value of the land by the Collector. The sale transaction of Mohal Kyan which land is same vis-a-vis land of Mohal Ropa and higher in value were wrongly ignored by the Collector while assessing the market value of the land. 5. The appellants contended that the market value worked out by the Collector was correct, adequate and just. The Collector while working out the market value of the land of this Mohal has taken into consideration all aspects and surrounding circumstances. 6. The issues were framed by the learned Reference Court on 18.6.2004. The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,25,528.37/- per bigha to Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha, with statutory benefits. Hence, these regular first appeals. 7. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has wrongly relied upon sale deeds Ext. P-1 to Ext. P-9, Ext. PA, Ext. P-10 to Ext. P-14 and Ext. PW-5/A, while determining the market value of the acquired land. According to him, the transactions pertaining to contiguous Mohals Kyan and Dhawal were required to be taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court. He has supported the award made by the Collector. On the other hand, Mr. N.K.Sood, Sr. Advocate, has supported the award dated 17.1.2009. 8. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the award and records of the case (s) carefully. 9. PW-1 Khazana Ram deposed that their land was acquired by the Kol Dam Project. It was situated in Mohal Ropa. The possession of the land was taken about 4-5 years back i.e. in December, 2000. The land was irrigated. There is BBMB Power House, Slapper and ACC Cement Plant at Barmana, in close vicinity of the acquired land. The price of the land was 10-11 lacs per bigha. They have been awarded compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 3.20 lacs per bigha. Kyan Mohal is adjacent to their Mohal, having common boundary and having land of lesser quality than their land and for Mohal Kyan compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. The price of the land was 10-11 lacs per bigha. They have been awarded compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 3.20 lacs per bigha. Kyan Mohal is adjacent to their Mohal, having common boundary and having land of lesser quality than their land and for Mohal Kyan compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 6 lac per bigha. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Kol Dam authorities started visiting their area about 10-11 years back. He denied the suggestion that in the year 2000, the land prices in their Mohal was not more than Rs. 15-20,000/- per bigha. The ACC Cement Plant, Barmana is at a distance of about 2 ½ - 3 kms from their Mohal. 10. PW-2 Ganpat Ram deposed that they were having four gharats (water mill) in village Ropa belonging to Kirpa Ram, Raghu Ram, Sher Singh and Sarvan Kumar etc. They have not been paid any compensation for loss of income and only price of structures has been paid. Paddy, ginger and vegetables etc. are sown in the area. Their land is near to ACC Barmana, Dehar Power Plant. The price of land in their area is Rs. 10-12 lacs per bigha. In the adjoining Mohal, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs per bigha. They should be paid compensation on the value of land of Kyan. 11. PW-3 Lekh Ram deposed that he has purchased land in village Kyan vide sale deed Ext. PA for sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. He had enquired about the land price at village Ropa and was told that the value of the land was Rs. 8 lacs per bigha and then he went to village Kyan and found the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per biswa. He, therefore, purchased 3 biswas of land for Rs. 1,20,000/-. 12. PW-4 Sarvan deposed that in village Ropa, Government purchased land from him. 15 families sold land to the Government at the rate of Rs. 4,62,000/- per bigha for the construction of the road. The agreement was executed in December, 2002 and the same was made in 2003. They were demanding price at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha but for want of budget, Government insisted at the rate of Rs. 4,62,000/-. The Government purchased 8-10 bighas of land. 13. PW-5 Sant Ram deposed that he remained Pradhan w.e.f. 1985 to 22.1.2006. The agreement was executed in December, 2002 and the same was made in 2003. They were demanding price at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha but for want of budget, Government insisted at the rate of Rs. 4,62,000/-. The Government purchased 8-10 bighas of land. 13. PW-5 Sant Ram deposed that he remained Pradhan w.e.f. 1985 to 22.1.2006. According to him, the acquired land falls in his Panchayat. In the year 1998-99, there was an agreement between HP PWD and the villagers for selling the land to HP PWD and they were demanding Rs. 10 lacs per bigha in Mohal Ropa. Their land in Mohal Ropa is irrigated one and they have been growing vegetables etc and finally in the year 1999, the land was agreed to be sold for Rs. 4,62,000/- per bigha. He proved sale deed vide Ext. PW-5/A. 14. PW-6 Sarvan Kumar and PW-7 Sher Singh deposed that they were earning Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month from the Gharats (water mill). The acquired land price was Rs. 10 lacs per bigha. 15. RW-1 Partap Singh deposed that he remained Tehsildar at Sundernagar w.e.f. March, 2000 to November, 2002. He proved Notifications Ext. RW-1/A to Ext. RW- 1/O, Notices under Section 9 of the Act Ext. R-1 to R-3 and sale deeds Ext. RA to RD. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has no knowledge on what basis the market value of the acquired land was assessed by the Collector. 16. It is admitted case of the parties that no sale transaction has taken place in Mohal Ropa at or about the time of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Collector had awarded flat rate of Rs. 3,25,828.37 paise per bigha. It has come on record that ACC Cement plant is at a distance of 2 ½ -3 km. from the acquired land. Power House Dehar is also situated at a distance of 2.5-3 kms from the acquired land. 17. It is duly proved that the villagers of Ropa have sold their land to HP PWD vide sale deeds Ext. P-1 and Ext. PW-5/A dated 25.10.2002 for consideration of Rs. 4,62,000/- per bigha by private negotiations. The sale deeds were executed by HP PWD in the year 2002. It establishes that in Mohal Ropa, the market value of land has substantially increased. P-1 and Ext. PW-5/A dated 25.10.2002 for consideration of Rs. 4,62,000/- per bigha by private negotiations. The sale deeds were executed by HP PWD in the year 2002. It establishes that in Mohal Ropa, the market value of land has substantially increased. In this case, the notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act on 7.12.2000. The sale deeds Ext. P-1 and Ext. PW-5/A were in close proximity of acquired land of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 18. Mr. N.K.Sood, Sr. Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to Award No. 2 of 2002 vide Ext. P-15. Award No. 2 of 2002 pertains to the acquisition of land in village Kyan for Kol Dam Hydel Project. The compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 4,35,447.26 paise per bigha. The notification under Section 4 of the Act, as noticed hereinabove, by acquiring the land of Village Ropa, was also published on 11.12.2000. Mohal Kyan is adjoining to Mohal Ropa. It has also come on record that village Ropa is having better quality of land, since it is irrigated vis-à-vis Mohal Kyan. The HP PWD has already purchased land at village Ropa for a consideration of Rs. 4,62,000/- per bigha. The land of Mohal Kyan was though sold in small plots, in the year 2000, but for approximate price of Rs. 40,000/- 50,000/- per biswa. The learned Reference Court has correctly taken into consideration the sale transactions made vide sale deeds Ext. P-1 and Ext. PW-5/A and award No. 2 of 2002 Ext. P-15, while determining the market value of the acquired land of the claimants. 19. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, has placed strong reliance upon sale deeds Ext. RA to Ext. RD. These sale deeds were placed on record by RW-1 Partap Singh. RW-1 Partap Singh, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he has no knowledge on what basis the market value of the acquired land was assessed by the Collector. Sale deed Ext. RA pertains to Mohal Kyan, Ext. RB pertains to Mohal DPF Dhawal, Ext. RC pertains to village Kyan and Ext. RD pertains to Mohal Kyan. The Court has already noticed that the land of village Ropa was superior vis-à-vis Kyan. Village Ropa and Kyan share common boundary. The land at village Ropa itself has been purchased by the State Government for consideration of Rs. 4,62,000/- vide sale deed Ext. RC pertains to village Kyan and Ext. RD pertains to Mohal Kyan. The Court has already noticed that the land of village Ropa was superior vis-à-vis Kyan. Village Ropa and Kyan share common boundary. The land at village Ropa itself has been purchased by the State Government for consideration of Rs. 4,62,000/- vide sale deed Ext. P-15, which also pertains to village Kyan. This land was also acquired for the construction of Kol Dam. The Reference Court has correctly assessed the market value of the land. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned award of the Reference Court dated 17.1.2009. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.