JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur J. - These appeals arising out of common award passed in Land Reference Petition Nos. 5/10, 6/10, 7/10, 8/10, 9/10, 10/10, 12/10, 13/10, 14/10, 15/10, 16/10, 17/10, 18/10, 20/10, 21/10 and 22/10, and are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of law and facts involved in these appeals is to be decided on the basis of common evidence led in one Reference Petition after consolidation of all Reference Petitions pending in the Court of learned District Judge. 2. For establishing ''Sub Station and construction of road'' for M/s Everest Power Company Limited Malana-2 (appellant herein), land of respondents-landowners situated in Shilihar Kothi Kotkandi, Tehsil and district Kullu, H.P. was acquired by initiating acquisition process after issuing notification dated 20.6.2009 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act), which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 23.6.2009 and in newspaper on 24.6.2009. 3. After completing codal formalities, Land Acquisition Collector had determined rate of land under acquisition on the basis of classification as under:- "1. Bathal Aval Rs. 3,17,460/- 2. Bathal Doem Rs. 2,40,240/- 3. Bathal Som Rs. 1,63,020/-" 4. Being aggrieved by the rates determined by Land Acquisition Collector, land owners preferred land reference petitions which were decided by learned District Judge awarding uniform value of acquired land irrespective of nature and classification of land @ 39,000/-per biswa along with consequential statutory benefits as permissible under the Act, vide impugned award. 5. Appellant has assailed the award mainly on the ground that while relying upon sale deed Ex. PW-10/B for determining the value of acquired land, learned District Judge after rightly making deduction of 65%, has wrongly added increase of 10% per year in the value of land arrived at after making deductions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 7. There are certain undisputed facts enumerated herein after. Land owners have proved on record sale deed Ex. PW-2/B dated 29.11.2001, wherein 1 biswas land was sold/purchased for Rs. 50,000/-, sale deed Ex. PW-3/B dated 8.9.2003, wherein 1 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,00,000/- and also sale deed Ex. PW-10/B dated 16.7.1993, wherein 6 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/-. Land owners have also proved on record agreement Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-2/B dated 29.11.2001, wherein 1 biswas land was sold/purchased for Rs. 50,000/-, sale deed Ex. PW-3/B dated 8.9.2003, wherein 1 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,00,000/- and also sale deed Ex. PW-10/B dated 16.7.1993, wherein 6 biswa land was sold/purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/-. Land owners have also proved on record agreement Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C executed between appellant project proponent and various land owners regarding purchase of land by appellant for installation of tower in the same Phati (village) for consideration of Rs. 60,000/- per biswa. Land owners have also tendered sale deeds Ex. PA and Ex. PB on record, which were not relied upon by them during the course of arguments before learned District Judge. 8. It is also admitted fact that appellant project proponent has neither filed reply nor led any evidence in land reference petitions. 9. Learned District Judge has discarded sale deeds Ex. PW- 2/B and Ex. PW-3/B on the ground that land sold/purchased vide these sale deeds was only 1 biswa, and after discarding agreements Ex. PW- 4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C on the ground that in these agreements, in addition to selling land for purpose of erection of towers for transmission line, access through other land of land owners to the acquired land was also provided, has relied upon sale deed Ex. PW- 10/B, wherein 6 biswa of land was sold and purchased for Rs. 2,50,000/-. 10. Learned District Judge has ignored sale deeds Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/B on the ground that these sale deeds were pertaining to only 1 biswa of land, but he has put reliance on PW-10/B, in which also small chunk of 6 biswa land was involved and for this reason he had made deduction of 65% in the value of land so arrived at in sale deed. It is settled that in absence of any other evidence on record, sale deeds of small chunk can be made basis for determining the value of acquired land, subject to reasonable deduction in the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, rejection of sale deeds Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/B out rightly for the reasons that small chunk of land is involved in those sale deeds, is not sustainable. However, for reasons stated hereinafter, these sale deeds are to be discarded. 11. It is noticeable that there was evidence on record i.e. agreements Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-3/B out rightly for the reasons that small chunk of land is involved in those sale deeds, is not sustainable. However, for reasons stated hereinafter, these sale deeds are to be discarded. 11. It is noticeable that there was evidence on record i.e. agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C, duly executed by appellant-project proponent with some land owners of the same Phati (village), having the proximity of time and location with acquisition of land in issue, whereas the sale deeds Ex. PW-2/B was executed on 29.11.2001 and PW-3/B was executed on 8.9.2003, whereas Ex.PW- 10/B was executed on 16.7.1993. These sale deeds were executed 8, 6 and 16 years prior to the acquisition proceedings in present case. In absence of any other evidence on record, these sale deeds may have been relevant to be considered, but when transactions of the same duration, having close proximity of time and location with evidence of similar nature and potentiality of land as to the land under acquisition, is available on record, it would have been proper to learned District Judge to determine the value of land on the basis of such transactions. 12. This Court in Case Union of India vs. Joginder Singh and other connected matters reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 416 , held that no deduction is required to be carried out in an exemplar''s sale transactions pertaining to the very same village having proximity of the time of acquisition where it is proved that land in question is having the same advantage as the land in exemplar''s sale deed has and also that big chunk is not to be seen in relation to area of acquired land but in relation to the individual holdings. There are exemplars transactions Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C on record pertaining to the same village. In case GM, Northen Railway vs. Guzar Singh and others reported in 2014(3) Shim.LC 1365 wherein no deduction was permitted for determining the market value of land under acquisition on the basis of exemplar sale deed of similar plot. Perusal of this judgment shows that in that case, it was proved on record that land involved in exemplar''s sale deed was in close proximity with the land under acquisition having same potential. It the present case also land owners have placed reliance on exemplar transactions Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. Perusal of this judgment shows that in that case, it was proved on record that land involved in exemplar''s sale deed was in close proximity with the land under acquisition having same potential. It the present case also land owners have placed reliance on exemplar transactions Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C by stating categorically that land under acquisition was having quality and potential equivalent to the land involved in exemplars transactions. Therefore, ratio of law as laid in aforesaid pronouncements is also applicable in present case. 13. Learned District Judge has made deduction of 65% on account of involvement of small chunk of land in sale deed Ex. PW-10/B but he has failed to notice that in the detail of land under acquisition of different land owners in award Ex. PW-1/D, small chunks of land of different land owners are under acquisition and the entire land under acquisition was not to be considered for the reasons that total land under acquisition belongs to different land owners, who are having separate and distinct right and title in different pieces of land under acquisition. As discussed herein above, it is also settled that area of total land under acquisition is not relevant for determining the market value of land under acquisition, but the area of land of individual owner is to be considered. 14. Learned District Judge has discarded sale deeds Ex. PW- 2/B and Ex. PW-3/B being sale deeds pertaining to small chunk of land, but has taken into consideration sale deed Ex. PW-10/B for determining market value of land. However, considering this sale deed, which also pertain to small chunk of land, had made deduction of 65%. Therefore, all these sale deeds were considered by him pertaining to small chunk of land, however, he had opted to pick up the sale deed, which was oldest one and farthest in proximity of time. When three sale deeds of small chunk of land were available on record, the reason for discarding Ex. PW-3/B, which was in close proximity of time, is not there in the impugned award. Formula of deduction of 65% and increase of 10% could also have been applied to the market value arrived at on the basis of Ex. PW-3/B, which comes about Rs. 44,000/- per biswa. 15. Be it as may be. There are agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. Formula of deduction of 65% and increase of 10% could also have been applied to the market value arrived at on the basis of Ex. PW-3/B, which comes about Rs. 44,000/- per biswa. 15. Be it as may be. There are agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C, which can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of acquired land, having close proximity with respect to time and location and also unrebutted evidence of the same potential utility and value of land involved in these agreements in comparison to the acquired land. 16. At the time of determining value on the basis of Ex. PW- 10/B, learned District Judge has made deduction of 65%, but how and where from he arrived at the conclusion to make deduction @ 65%, is not clear in the impugned award. No doubt some times on the basis of available evidence on record, Court may have to undertake guess work to determine the market value of land, but such guess work must be based on some reasonable explanation. 17. Plea of learned counsel for the appellant that learned District Judge has rightly made deduction of 65% to the value of land determined on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW-10/B, but has committed mistake by awarding increase @ 10% to the value arrived at after deduction, has become redundant, as the sale deed Ex. PW-10/B, for availability of the other evidence of exemplar transaction of the contemporary period, was not required to be relied upon. 18. In present case, when evidence of exemplar transactions Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C pertaining to contemporary period, were available on record, sale deed Ex. PW-10/B should not have been relied upon, wherein after making deduction, increase in the value of land arrived at after deduction was required to be added because of long gap of time between execution of sale deed and acquisition of land. It is true that in addition to transferring the ownership of land under purchase right to have access through the remaining land of land owners, was also subject matter of these agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. It is true that in addition to transferring the ownership of land under purchase right to have access through the remaining land of land owners, was also subject matter of these agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C, but at the same time, it is admitted fact that land in these agreements was pertaining to the same Phali (village) and the land owners in their statements in the Court, have specifically stated that land involved in these agreements and land under acquisition are adjacent to each other, having equal utility, potential and value. The said version of land owners remained unrebutted, as the appellant had neither filed reply nor led any evidence in rebuttal. 19. So far as additional factor of granting access through remaining land having impact upon determination of value of land acquired through these negotiated agreements is concerned, some reasonable deduction could have been made for determining appropriate market value of land under acquisition. Appellant has acquired land vide these agreements through negotiation @ 60,000/- per biswa, but in any case right to have access to these pieces of land was legitimate right of the appellant, for which no extra amount was required to be paid. However, even if plea of appellant that higher rate was given for having access right to these pieces of land is accepted, such addition cannot be more than 50% of value of land at any stretch of imagination. In such eventuality actual value of land becomes to be Rs. 40,000/- per biswa, and by adding 50% thereof, i.e. Rs. 20,000/- per biswa in it the amount of consideration for 1 biswa becomes to Rs. 60,000/-. Therefore, after deduction of this 50% add on value of land becomes to Rs. 40,000/- per biswa. Even if V of value negotiated in these agreements i.e. Rs. 20,000/- is deducted from value of land, Rs. 60,000/- then also market value of land under acquisition comes to Rs. 40,000/- per biswa. 20. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that in case agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C are to be taken into consideration for determining the value of acquired land, then deduction for development charges is also to be made. 60,000/- then also market value of land under acquisition comes to Rs. 40,000/- per biswa. 20. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that in case agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C are to be taken into consideration for determining the value of acquired land, then deduction for development charges is also to be made. For deduction on account of development charges, heavy reliance has been placed on judgments passed in cases titled as Indian Council of Medical Research vs. T.N. Sanikop and another reported in 2014(16) SCC 274 & Major General Kapil Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another reported in 2015(2) SCC 262 wherein deduction up to 75% has been held to be permissible. 21. Plea of the appellants on this issue is misconceived. In present case, acquisition is not for the purpose of developing a Housing Colony, setting up a commercial unit or any other purpose of like nature which may have resulted development of area on the cost of the State. In the judgments relied upon by the appellants, the deductions were allowed for two purposes i.e. (a) deduction for providing development infrastructure and (b) deduction for development expenditure/expenses and these deduction have been explained by the Apex Court in case titled Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2012)1 SCC 390 , which is as under:- "19. Based on the precedents on the issue referred to above it is seen, that as the legal proposition on the point crystallized, this Court divided the quantum of deductions (to be made from the market value determined on the basis of the developed exemplar transaction) on account of development into two components. 19.1 Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure. 19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure/expense. 20. It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions, out of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of the two components referred to above. This would be the first step towards balancing the differential factors. This would pave the way for determining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value of the developed exemplar land. 22. 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. 23. In the present case, acquisition is for the purpose of establishing substation and construction of road and therefore, deduction price of development on the basis of either of the aforesaid two components is not applicable. 24. Deduction can be made for various reasons and in present case deduction of / value has been made as discussed above to the value of land available on record in agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C pertaining to the same village for the same period but with additional right of access to land from remaining land. 25. Learned District Judge has awarded Rs. 39,000/- per biswa, which is nearer to Rs. 40,000/-. Further, land owners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, as discussed above, no interference in the rate determined by learned District Judge, i.e. Rs. 39,000/- per biswa is warranted. 26. 25. Learned District Judge has awarded Rs. 39,000/- per biswa, which is nearer to Rs. 40,000/-. Further, land owners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Therefore, as discussed above, no interference in the rate determined by learned District Judge, i.e. Rs. 39,000/- per biswa is warranted. 26. With the aforesaid observations, present appeals are dismissed without interfering in the value of acquired land, as determined by learned District Judge along with consequential statutory interest and benefits. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in all connected appeals.