JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur J. - These appeals arising out of common award dated 1.6.2009 passed by learned District Judge in land reference petition Nos. 13-S/4 of 2008, 7-S/4 of 2008, 9-S/4 of 2008, 8-S/4 of 2008, 10-S/4 of 2008, 11-S/4 of 2008, 12-S/5 of 2008, 14-S/4 of 2008, 15-S/4 of 2008 and 16-S/4 of 2008, preferred by land owners under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to the ''Act'') are being decided by this common judgment as common question of law and fact is involved and all these reference petitions were clubbed and decided together by learned District Judge on the basis of evidence led only in one lead case. 2. Appeals bearing RFA Nos. 277 to 286 of 2009 have been preferred by land owners for further enhancement of compensation amount, whereas RFA Nos. 296 to 305 of 2009 have been preferred by State of H.P. being aggrieved by enhanced value of land under acquisition by learned District Judge. 3. State of H.P. has acquired 18 bighas 18 biswas land in village Lohanji, Tehsil and District Solan belonging to land owners for construction of Kumarhatti-Oachghat road by issuing notification dated 6.5.2006 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in State Rajpatra on 3.6.2006 and in daily newspaper on 5.6.2006. After complying with the provisions of the Act, Land Acquisition Collector had awarded different rate for acquisition of land in question on the basis of classification, which is as under: "Classification of land. Rate per Bigha Rate per Biswa. 1. Kuhal Rs.11,57,333/- Rs.57,867/- 2. Katool Rs.8,98,999/- Rs.44,950/- 3. Bangar Awal Rs.5,78,666/- Rs.28,933/- 4. Bangar II Rs.3,82,333/- Rs.19,177/- 5. Bangar III Rs.1,96,333/- Rs.9,817/- 6. Banjar Har Kisam Rs.93,000/- Rs.4650/- 7. Ghasni Rs.31,000/- Rs.1550/-" 4. It is undisputed that land belonging to category Kuhal is not subject matter of the present lis and land falling up to the category of Katool is subject matter of the proceedings of land under reference. 5. Land owners have preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which have been decided by learned District Judge vide impugned award, awarding Rs. 8,98,999/- per Bigha for the land falling in the category of Katool and Rs. 2,40,000/- per Bigha for the land falling in remaining categories i.e. Bangar Awal, Bangar II, Bangar III, Banjar Har Kisam and Ghasni. 8,98,999/- per Bigha for the land falling in the category of Katool and Rs. 2,40,000/- per Bigha for the land falling in remaining categories i.e. Bangar Awal, Bangar II, Bangar III, Banjar Har Kisam and Ghasni. Learned District Judge has not interfered in the market value of Rs. 8,98,999/- of land of Katool category, but he has enhanced the market value for the category of Ghasni, Banjar Har Kisam and Bangar III from Rs. 31,000/-, Rs. 93,000/- and Rs. 1,96,333/- per Bigha to uniform rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per Bigha. Further he has also determined market value of Bangar Awal and Bangar II at the same rate i.e. Rs. 2,40,000/- against market value of Rs. 5,70,666/- and Rs. 3,83,333/- of these categories determined and awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, resulting into awarding compensation lower than that granted by Land Acquisition Collector. 6. State of H.P. has preferred appeals on the ground that enhancement of compensation of category of Ghasni, Banjar Har Kisam and Bangar III is highly excessive and learned District Judge has wrongly ignored the sale deeds produced by the State and also no deduction for development has been made by the learned District Judge at the time of determining the market value of the land and the land sold and purchased vide sale deed Ex. P-B relied upon by the land owners, pertaining to an orchard, which cannot be made basis for determining the value of land of an inferior category and learned District Judge has committed a mistake by awarding uniform rate for different three categories Ghasni, Bangar Har Kisam and Bangar III. 7. Land owners have preferred appeals on the ground that Rs. 2,40,000/- awarded for five categories of land is lesser then the rate awarded by the Collector and thus is in violation of Section 25 of the Act, and average value placed on record vide Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-11 reflecting the rising trend of the price of the land has been ignored by learned District Judge, and unrebutted facts proved on record by placing jamabandies for the year 1972-73, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-11 reflecting the rising trend of the price of the land has been ignored by learned District Judge, and unrebutted facts proved on record by placing jamabandies for the year 1972-73, Ex. PA and P-B, that road was constructed prior to 1972, has also not been taken into consideration and no compensation/use and occupation charges since 1972 till May, 2006 i.e. date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been awarded, for which the land owners were entitled, and further determination of two different rates for the acquired land on the basis of classification, particularly when the land has been acquired for construction of road, is also illegal. On behalf of land owners, prayer for deduction of development charges has also been opposed on the ground that no such deduction in case where land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of road is permissible. Moreover, as evident from Ex. PA and PB the road already existed prior to the notification for acquisition. 8. It is settled that market value of land acquired for common purpose without any developmental activity is to be awarded at uniform rate. (see Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRS vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 (paras 22 and 23); Himmat Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 (para 34); Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 (paras 80 and 81); Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 ; Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564 ; as also this Court in RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another vs. Jatinder Singh, decided on 1.6.2016). 9. Relying upon Gulabi and etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64 and Harinder Pal Singh (supra) this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 H.P. 1007 has held that for determining market value of land acquired for construction of road, classification and category of land is immaterial and compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. 10. 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64 and Harinder Pal Singh (supra) this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 H.P. 1007 has held that for determining market value of land acquired for construction of road, classification and category of land is immaterial and compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. 10. 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. 11. 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. 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. 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. 14. Award of compensation lesser than awarded by Land Acquisition Collector is impermissible under section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. 15. In present case highest value determined by Land Acquisition Collector is Rs. 8,98,999/- and in view of ratio of law discussed herein above, uniform rate for acquired land irrespective of classification is to be determined. There is a rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector itself and in which no deduction is permissible under Section 25 of the Act, therefore, minimum market value of acquired land cannot be lesser than Rs. 8,98,999/-. This value is determined by Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of his inputs from revenue department of the State, therefore, market value of land in question can safely be determined at uniform rate of Rs. 8,98,999/-. This value is determined by Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of his inputs from revenue department of the State, therefore, market value of land in question can safely be determined at uniform rate of Rs. 8,98,999/- per Bigha as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 16. State has relied upon sale deed dated 7.2.2007 Ex. RW-1/B and sale deed dated 10.11.2006 RW-1/C pertaining to adjoining village Runon Ghodon whereas land under acquisition is of village Lohanji. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred Khaka Dasti tagged with record for proving that village Runon Ghodon is adjacent to village Lohanji and thus contended that the land under reference in sale deeds Ex. RW-1/B and RW-1/C are of the similar nature of the land. Whereas, land owners have proved on record sale deeds of village Lohanji, which are Ex. PB, dated 28.2.2006, Ex. PC, dated 16.6.2005, Ex. PD, dated 17.6.2005 and Ex. PE, dated 2.9.2005, wherein value of land comes to be ranging from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 8,50,000/-. Sale deeds produced by State cannot be made basis for determining the market value of land under acquisition for the reason that these sale deeds are of another village and though pertaining to adjacent village, but for availability of exemplar sale deeds of the same village, are not relevant. These sale deeds were produced by the State by examining RW-1, Bidhi Chand, Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, who in cross-examination fairly admitted that he had not made any effort to procure sale deeds pertaining to village Lohanji from Sub Registrar, Solan. Sale deeds produced by land owners reflecting market value of land ranging from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 8,50,000/- per Bigha. However, there is market value of land awarded by Land Acquisition Collector on record at the rate of Rs. 8,98,999/- per Bigha. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, no lesser value than that can be awarded to the land owners and as discussed above for acquisition of land for construction of road, uniform rate is to be awarded to the land acquired. 17. 8,98,999/- per Bigha. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, no lesser value than that can be awarded to the land owners and as discussed above for acquisition of land for construction of road, uniform rate is to be awarded to the land acquired. 17. Though specific plea taken by land owners in land reference petitions that road was constructed in the year 1977 and process for acquisition of land was initiated only after intervention of High Court after writ petitions preferred by land owners, but RW-1 Bidhi Chand has disputed this fact by denying that Kumarhatti-Oachghat road was constructed in the year 1977 with further explanation that it might have been constructed by Block Development Office, but not by HPPWD. Therefore, this aspect remains disputed and no positive evidence to establish that road was constructed by HPPWD in the year 1977 has been brought on record. Therefore, HPPWD cannot be burdened for paying compensation/use and occupation charges from 1977 to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 18. Perusal of one year average value of land placed on record by way of documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-11, it is found that various sale deeds have been repeated in successive documents and the value of land of Katool has been assessed 35,03,089-80 to 2,28,19,375-29 per Bigha. In these documents, no sale deed pertaining to Katool category of land has been referred, however, rates of Katool land have been reflected changing in every document. Therefore, these documents in absence of any justifiable explanation on record cannot be considered as basis for determining the market value of land under acquisition. 19. In view of above discussion, appeals preferred by State of H.P. are dismissed and appeals preferred by land owners are accepted and land owners are held to be entitled for compensation to the entire acquired land, regardless of its nature, class or category, at a uniform rate of Rs. 8,98,999/- per Bigha, with all statutory entitlements, including additional solatium and interest on the enhanced value of land in accordance with the provision of the Act. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in all connected appeals. Record be sent back.