JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Decision:- Present regular first appeal is filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 against the award dated 24.3.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu H.P. in land reference case No. 81 of 2002, RBT No. 78 of 2004/36 of 2005 title Gupat Ram vs. Collector Land Acquisition Kullu H.P. Brief facts of the case 2. Land Acquisition Collector Kullu H.P. passed award under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 relating to land measuring 11-3-0 bighas in Phati Palchan Kothi Manali Tehsil and District Kullu and also passed the award relating to immovable land measuring 372-16-0 bighas of land in Phati Burwa Kothi Manali Tehsil and District Kullu for Army Transit camp. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 23.12.1993 and was published in H.P. Rajpatra. Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 27.11.1995 and notification was also published in newspaper. Inquiry under Section 8 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was also conducted by revenue staff at the spot and Naib Tehsildar Kullu submitted report on 12.7.1996. Notification under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act was also issued on 5.11.1996 to interested persons and interested persons appeared before Land Acquisition Collector and they demanded government land in exchange of acquired land. The inhabitants of area pleaded that if exchanged land would not be given then adequate compensation be paid to them. Land Acquisition Collector personally inspected the land in question and Land Acquisition Collector Kullu assessed the market value of land situated in Phati Palchan as follows. (1) Bathal Doem Rs.10000/- per biswa. (2) Bathal Chehram Rs. 4000/- per biswa. (3) Banjar Kadim/Abadi Rs. 4000/- per biswa. (4) Gair Mumkin Rs.2000/- per biswa. Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of immovable land situated in Phati Burwa as follows. (1) Orchard Rs.10000/- per biswa. (2) Bathal Doem Rs.3500/- per biswa. (3) Bathal Chehram Rs.2000/- per biswa. (4) Gair Mumkin Rs.1000/- per biswa. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector Kullu reference petition filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 before learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu and learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu consolidated 59 reference petitions and passed the consolidated order in 59 reference petitions. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector Kullu reference petition filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 before learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu and learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu consolidated 59 reference petitions and passed the consolidated order in 59 reference petitions. Learned Additional District Judge Kullu H.P. assessed the market value of immovable land situated in Phati Palchan as Rs.7505/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred five only) per biswa and learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu assessed the market value of immovable land situated at Phati Burwa as Rs.8838/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty eight only) per biswa on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Learned Additional District Judge Kullu H.P. has further held that assessment would be made irrespective of nature and kind of land acquired. Learned Additional District Judge in addition granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum on enhanced compensation amount under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act 1894. Learned Additional District Judge Kullu also granted 30% compulsory acquisition charges on enhanced amount under Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Learned Additional District Judge further held that in addition petitioner would be entitled to interest on enhanced compensation amount at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter 15% per annum till the amount is deposited in Court. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the award passed by learned Additional District Judge Kullu Union of India through Secretary (Defence) New Delhi filed present regular first appeal. 5. Court heard learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and Court also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present regular first appeal:- 1. Whether award passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu H.P. is perverse and based upon non-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 7. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has committed illegality by way of awarding compensation at uniform rate is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 2. Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 7. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has committed illegality by way of awarding compensation at uniform rate is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that immovable land was acquired for Army Transit Camp. It is well settled law that when object of acquisition of land is same then compensation should be awarded at uniform rate. In view of the fact that object of acquisition of immovable land is same i.e. Army Transit Camp it is held that learned Additional District Judge has granted compensation at uniform rate in consonance with law. See AIR 1995 SC 667 title Mehtab Singh vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1995 Delhi 358 titled Rameshwar Solanki vs. Union of India. Following are plus factors in land acquisition cases in favour of land owners. (1) Smallness of size. (2) Proximity to road. (3) Frontage on road. (4) Nearness to developed area. (5) Regular shops. (6) Level viz-a-viz land under acquisition. Following are minus factors in land acquisition cases against land owners. (1) Distance from road. (2) Narrow strip of land. (3) Depressed portion to be filled up. (4) Remoteness from developed locality. (5) Some special disadvantages which would deter purchaser from purchase of acquired land. 8. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Trial Court has not mentioned the amount actually payable to co-respondent No.1 and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Additional District Judge has specifically mentioned in relief clause that market value of acquired land situated at Phati Palchan would be at the rate of Rs. 7505/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred five only) per biswa. Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has specifically mentioned in positive manner that market value of acquired land situated at Phati Burva would be Rs. 8838/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty eight only) per biswa. Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has specifically mentioned the value of acquired land per biswa and compensation would be granted to correspondent No.1 as per value of land assessed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu. 8838/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty eight only) per biswa. Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has specifically mentioned the value of acquired land per biswa and compensation would be granted to correspondent No.1 as per value of land assessed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu. In view of the fact that learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu has mentioned the value of land per biswa relating to Phati Palchan and Phati Burva it is held that there is no illegality committed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu H.P. 9. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of appellant that Gupat Ram co-respondent No.1 did not mention the details of acquired land i.e. khasra number and area of land and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that khasra number and area of acquired land relating to Gupat Ram is mentioned in file of Land Acquisition Collector as per Land Acquisition Act 1894. Land Acquisition Officer is under legal obligation to mention khasra number, khata/khatauni number and area of acquired land of each owner while awarding compensation amount and Land Acquisition Collector is under legal obligation to mention the actual amount of each co-owner as per share of acquired land. 10. Submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of appellant that interest should be from the date of passing of reference award and not from the date of possession and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 Collector can be directed to pay interest on the excess compensation from the date on which Collector took the possession of land to date of payment of excess amount in Court. It is held that learned Additional District Judge has rightly granted interest strictly in consonance with Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. 11. It is observed by Court that same award dated 24.3.2005 was challenged by Union of India in RFA Nos. It is held that learned Additional District Judge has rightly granted interest strictly in consonance with Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894. 11. It is observed by Court that same award dated 24.3.2005 was challenged by Union of India in RFA Nos. 105 of 2007, 147 of 2007, 226 of 2007, 227 of 2007, 230 of 2007, 232 of 2007, 233 of 2007, 237 of 2007, 238 of 2007, 239 of 2007, 241 of 2007, 243 of 2007, 244 of 2007, 326 of 2007 and 64 of 2008. It is also proved on record that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 19.9.2014 affirmed same award passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Tack Court Kullu. In view of the fact that same award passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Kullu is affirmed by Hon’ble High Court on 19.9.2014 in RFAs cited supra it is not expedient in the ends of justice to pass contradictory award in present case. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that earlier decision of H.P. High Court announced in former RFAs is set aside or modified by competent authority of law. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 12. In view of findings on point No.1 above RFA is dismissed. No order as to costs. File of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Kullu along with certified copy of this decision be sent back forthwith. RFA stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.