JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed that all these appeals and cross-objections be heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. This was for the reason that notwithstanding the difference in the dates of commencement of acquisition proceedings. Purpose of acquisition being common, and the evidence, similar in nature, so led in six cases, the point in issue is similar. Also the land is situate in an area where there is not much variation in the geographical and topographical conditions. It is also submitted that the Court below itself had consolidated the cases and as desired by the parties, permitted evidence to be led only in six lead cases, which also is similar in nature and except for different sale deeds produced in different cases, pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings, other evidence is almost identical. 2. In these appeals arising out of awards dated 30.06.2011, 17.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 08.12.2011, and 19.04.2012, passed by the Court below, in various reference petitions, so filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Court below has uniformly re-determined the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 2,30,000/-per hectare to Rs. 7,20,000/-per hectare. 3. Both the State and the claimants are aggrieved of the same and have filed the instant appeals/cross-objections. 4. Challenge is on two grounds: (a) Court below erred in uniformly determining the market value of the acquired land; and (b) re-determination of the market value is on the higher /lower side. 5. For the public purpose, namely, construction of water source to be constructed by the Irrigation and Public Health Department, in relation to the Shah Nehar Project, Fatehpur, land of all the claimants, situate in Dhoulpur, Rey, Chabbar, Tatwali, Badhukhar and Duhag, came to be acquired. Proceedings for acquisition of the land, under the provisions of the Act, came to be initiated with the publication of different Notifications dated 22.09.1998, 30.01.1999, 11.06.1999, 18.06.1999 and 19.07.2002, so issued under Section 4 of the Act. The proceedings came to be culminated with the awards passed by the Collector Land Acquisition under Section 11 of the Act and the possession of the land being taken over. The proceedings came to be culminated with the awards passed by the Collector Land Acquisition under Section 11 of the Act and the possession of the land being taken over. The Collector Land Acquisition, determined the market value of the land, category wise on different rates as per different awards dated 07.04.2001, 11.01.2001, 10.01.2002, 29.01.2002, 28.04.2003 and 26.12.2003. 6. Dissatisfied with the same, claimants filed various land reference petitions, which came to be clubbed together. The claimants set up a claim seeking re-determination of the market value ranging from Rs. 26 lacs to Rs. 39 lacs, which on the basis of evidence on record was found to be Rs. 7.20 lacs. 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. Canal 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. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. Also it has acknowledged the principle of providing increase in the market value up to 10% to 12% per year for the land situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. 11. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 12. 11. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/-per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 12. 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. 13. This Court, in Gulabi and etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 , where the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway-21, held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation uniformly for all classes of land irrespective of its classification or quality. I am conscious that the facts are different in the instant case and the principle laid down therein cannot be applied stricto sensu. But however, this principle was followed and accepted by this Court in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003(3), Shim. L. C. 64, wherein the land was acquired for the purposes of setting up of a Housing Colony by the respondent authority itself. The Court held that: “27. When the land is being developed for a housing colony, as in the present case, classification completely looses significance. Reason being that it has to be developed as a single unit i.e. for housing colony. Similarly allowing higher price for land near the road and for the one which is at a distance from the road also does not provide any reasonable, muchless rational basis to allow less price for the area. Reason being that a person may be interested to reside near the road side in a developed colony for so may reasons. Whereas another, may like to live in the vicinity which is away from the road to avoid hustle and bustle of being near the roadside and for many other reasons. In these circumstances it cannot be said that location of the land and its distance from the road is a good criteria and/ or for that matter classification for the assessment of compensation. In my view entire land under acquisition should have been assessed at Rs.200 per sq. In these circumstances it cannot be said that location of the land and its distance from the road is a good criteria and/ or for that matter classification for the assessment of compensation. In my view entire land under acquisition should have been assessed at Rs.200 per sq. meter irrespective of its classification and/ or distance from the road.” 28. Faced with this situation, Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Housing Board submitted, that it is matter of common knowledge that plots situated on the roadside carry higher price, as compared to the plots which are away from the road. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamlamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and others K. Krishnamachari and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385 . What was held and is relevant was as under:- “7. The argument advanced by Shri Nageswara Rao that the classification by the Land Acquisition Officer was in order and ought not to have been interfered with by the reference court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and, therefore, classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.” 14. This judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board was dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 15. This judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board was dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 15. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates. 16. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Canal 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. 17. Hence there cannot be any error in the awards to this extent. More so, for the reason, as has come in the unrebutted testimony of Satpal Singh (PW.1) that most of the acquired land was either put to agricultural use or had potential thereof. 18. Now this takes us to the second question. It is a settled principle of law that land reference petition is to be adjudicated as a plaint and the onus to prove the claim is on the claimants. 19. It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants. The claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. However, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708 ). 20. It is also a settled principle of law that the claimants have to establish their case by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence. Such evidence has to be within the meaning and scope of Section 3 and other relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Only such evidence so proven in accordance with law, which is admissible is required to be considered by the Court. 21. The most reliable way to determine the value is to rely on the instances of sale portions of the same land as stands acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after the Section 4 Notification. {Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 467 } 22. If there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages could be taken to be a guiding factors for determination of market value. {Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 152 , ONGC Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 454 }. 23. In the instant case, the claimants referred to earlier awards dated 30.06.2011 (Ex.P1), so passed by Additional District Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in RBT Reference Case No.9-J/2011/2004, titled as Suresh Chand Versus Land Acquisition Collector. However, the trial Court rightly did not rely there upon the same for it being subject matter of challenge in an appeal. 24. Record reveals that all the land references were consolidated and common evidence led by the parties in six cases. In a tabulated form, evidence led in each of the six cases, is shown here-in-under:- RFA & CO Nos. 24. Record reveals that all the land references were consolidated and common evidence led by the parties in six cases. In a tabulated form, evidence led in each of the six cases, is shown here-in-under:- RFA & CO Nos. of lead case Award (S.18 of the Act) Date of notification u/s. 4 of the Act Date of award of Collector (u/s.11 of the Act) Date/Exhibit of the Sale Deeds Witnesses examined RFA No.953/2012 19.4.2012 30.1.1999 28.4.2003 Ex.PW.1/C, Ex.PW.1/D & Ex.PW.1/E Kewal Singh (PW.1), Lal Singh (RW.1) RFA No.703/2012 30.11.2011 11.6.1999 29.1.2002 Ex.PW.1/B, Ex.PW.1/C & Ex.PW.1/D Satpal Singh (PW.1), Jai Singh (RW.1) RFA No.790/2012 8.12.2011 30.1.1999 10.1.2002 Ex.PW.1/B to Ex.PW.1/G Sikander Singh (PW.1), Jai Singh (RW.1) RFA No.225/2012 & CO No. 1012/2012 17.11.2011 19.7.2002 26.12.2K3 Ex.PW.1/D, Ex.PW.1/E & Ex.PW.1/F Shamsher Singh (PW.1), Jai Singh (RW.1) RFA No.573/2012 30.11.2011 18.6.1999 11.1.2001 Ex.PW.1/A to Ex.PW.1/D Satish Kumar (PW.1), Jamil Mohd. (RW.1) RFA No.70/2012& CO No. 1008/2012 30.6.2011 22.9.1998 7.4.2011 Ex.PW.2/B, Ex.PW.2/C & Ex.PW.2/D Joginder Singh (PW.1), Suresh Chand (PW.2), Prakash Chand (RW.1) Amongst them lead case was taken as Reference Case RBT No.68-J/2010/2006, titled as Satpal Singh Versus Land Acquisition Collector. Court is conscious of the fact that Notifications and the award vary over a period of two years but it is seen that in all the cases, nature of evidence is similar, in fact stereotyped. As such, evidence in this case is being discussed. 25. Now significantly from the testimonies of two witnesses examined by the parties, namely, Satpal Singh (PW.1) and Jai Singh Kanungo (RW.1), certain undisputed facts have emerged. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Canal. The land was put to agricultural use by the villagers. However, with the construction of a Canal, their agricultural land came to be divided into two portions, not only diminishing its utility but also causing inconvenience and hardship to the land owners. The width of the Canal is just 15 meters. It is not the case of either of the parties that the land owners were to be benefited by way of Irrigation. In fact, Canal was constructed to irrigate the lands not in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but in the neighbouring States of Punjab, Harayana and Rajasthan. 26. It is also evident from their testimonies that in close proximity there is a township. In fact, Canal was constructed to irrigate the lands not in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but in the neighbouring States of Punjab, Harayana and Rajasthan. 26. It is also evident from their testimonies that in close proximity there is a township. If one were to travel on foot, at the nearest habitation, there is an ITI/College at a distance of 2 kms and if one were to travel by road, then it is only 6 kms. However, if one were to travel through a longer route i.e. the bye-pass (National Highway) then it would be approximately 24 kms. There is variation with regard to the distance of the boundary of the neighbouring State i.e. Punjab. It is between 1.5 kms to 10 kms. But it also stands established that land is situated around a township and is easily accessible from all sides and by all means. Also part of the irrigation project was in existence, much prior to the issuance of the notification in the lead case. All the area where the land stood acquired was accessible by motorable road. Township of Pathankot is also closeby. Thus, it is evidently clear that the entire land had great potential of being put to both agricultural/horticultural as also commercial use. Land cannot be said to be situated in the hinterland or remotest corner of the State. 27. It is also evidently clear as is so admitted by Jai Singh (RW-1) that the Collector had determined the market value of the land by taking into account the annual average of the revenue generated by the State from the agricultural produce. Now this in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) and others Versus Ajay Kumar and others, (2014) 13 SCC 734 ; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and another Versus Krishan Kumar and others, (2011) 15 SCC 297 ; Pattammal and others Versus Union of India and another, (2005) 13 SCC 63 ; and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary Versus Bipin Kumar and another, (2004) 2 SCC 283 , was not permissible for income generated by the State from agricultural produce is not determinative of the real market value of acquired land. 28. 28. 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 pay and receive. 29. 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 }. 30. 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 ). 31. 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. 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. 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. 32. 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. 33. As already discussed, the onus to prove and establish the real market value is always upon the claimants. Now significantly through h is testimony, Satpal Singh (PW.1) has also proven on record various sale deeds. However, trial Court has taken into account three of them being Ex.PW.1/B, Ex.PW.1/C and Ex.PW.1/D, being prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. These pertain to small chunks of land whereby land admeasuring 0-00-40 HM was sold for consideration of Rs. 100/-per centare; 62 Centare for Rs. 5000/- and 0-01-01 HM for Rs. 10,000/-. These sale deeds pertain to the year 1997. They pertain to Tikka Rey and Tikka Tatwali. The Court below, by rightly applying the principle laid down in Haridwar Development Authority Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , carried out necessary deduction of 25% there upon. This was so done in view of the exemplar sale deeds pertaining to small parcel of land. Significantly there is neither any challenge to the execution of these sale deeds or genuineness thereof. They pertain to the period prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. It is also not the case of the parties that these sale deeds came to be executed only for the purpose of creating evidence in anticipation that the land in question would also be acquired. They pertain to the period prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. It is also not the case of the parties that these sale deeds came to be executed only for the purpose of creating evidence in anticipation that the land in question would also be acquired. In fact, claimants had no inkling of the acquisition of their land and were taken by surprise with the commencement of the acquisition proceedings. Thus, by taking into account the average of these sale deeds, so proven on record, the value turned out to be Rs. 9.6 lacs, and by carrying deduction of 25%, the Court below rightly determined the market value of the entire acquired land to be Rs. 7.20 lacs per hectare. It has come in the testimony of the witness examined by the State that the land stood acquired in Tikka Chabbar, Rey, Tatwali, Dhoulpur and Indpur. 34. Hence the Court below rightly determined compensation on the basis of material on record. 35. Noticeably since uniform rate was applied for the entire acquired land, Court below rightly did not award any amount for the loss of income of the agricultural/horticultural produce with respect to the acquired land. 36. The Court below, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, (2002) 3 SCC 688 , has given 10% appreciation for the years between execution of the sale deeds and acquisition of the land. 37. 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. As such, present appeals as also the cross-objections stand dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.