JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant Regular First Appeal is directed against the impugned award recorded by the learned Reference Court in Reference Petition No. 17-S/4 of 1999 whereby he determined with respect to the lands brought to acquisition compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per bigha. The aforesaid compensation amount was uniformly assessed with respect to all the categories of the land, as stood brought to acquisition. Also the learned Reference Court added thereon all the statutory benefits. The learned Reference Court while assessing a uniform rate of compensation qua diverse categories of land, had made reliance upon Ext.PA, exhibit whereof comprises a sale deed with respect to lands located at Chak-Chopal, wherein land holding an area of 3-14-0 bighas is displayed to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs.2,40,317/- Consequently, the market value with respect to one bigha is held in a sum of Rs. 64,950/- However, for determining whether imputation of reliance thereupon was legally tenacious, it is imperative to bear in mind whether the aforesaid land borne in Ext.PA, satiating the twin parameters. (a) its standing located in close proximity to the lands brought to acquisition (b) the execution of sale deed comprised in Ext.PA occurring in close proximity vis-a-vis the apposite notification whereunder the acquired lands were hence brought to acquisition. 2. With PW-1 and PW-2 respectively in their testifications communicating that the location whereon the land, borne in Ext.PA is located, is in close proximity to Chak-Bodhna, wherein the acquired land is located also theirs deposing that no sale deed with respect to the lands occurring in Chak-Bodhna existing on record, enhances an inference, especially when the aforesaid testifications borne in their respective examinations in chief, remained unshattered during the course of theirs being subjected to an exacting cross-examination, that hence with the owners satisfying the legally enjoined parameter of lands borne on Ext.PA being located in close proximity to the lands brought to acquisition, hence imputation of reliance thereupon being tenable. 3. Be that as it may, the sale deed comprised in Ext.PA is evidently executed on 22.02.1989 whereas the notification whereunder the apposite lands of the land owners were brought to acquisition, is issued almost 10 years thereafter. 3. Be that as it may, the sale deed comprised in Ext.PA is evidently executed on 22.02.1989 whereas the notification whereunder the apposite lands of the land owners were brought to acquisition, is issued almost 10 years thereafter. Consequently, with execution of Ext.PA occurring much prior to the issuance of the apposite notification, whereunder the lands of the land owners were brought to acquisition, hence when obviously some escalation is bound to occur with respect of the price of lands held in Chak Bodhna or in Chak-Chopal, “whereas” in respect thereof, no claim was espoused by the land owners either before the learned Reference Court nor before this Court, hence the Court is constrained to not escalate the market value of the lands borne in Ext.PA, for hence enhancing compensation amount determined under the impugned award, rather this Court is constrained to conclude that hence with the land owners, evidently satisfying the parameters of proximity occurring inter se execution of Ext.PA vis-a-vis issuance of the apposite notification, in sequel, reliance upon Ext.PA is also tenable. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, Shimla while pronouncing the award in Land Reference Petition No.17-S/4 of 1999 wherefrom the instant appeal has arisen, had as displayed by a incisive perusal of the relevant rendition also as evincible from the evidence, as exists hereat, meted reverence to all the relevant factors enjoined to be borne in mind whereupon he allowed the reference petition preferred therebefore by the aggrieved landowners, wherein they assailed the insufficiency of the compensation amount as assessed qua their lands by the Land Acquisition Collector. Moreover, in the learned Addl. District Judge, meteing deference to the relevant evidentiary material while assessing compensation qua the lands of the aggrieved land owners, he has hence not wandered astray from the trite principles of law. 5. The reliance as placed by the learned Reference Court upon the relevant material in display of the lands of the landowners as brought to acquisition holding the monetary value as enumerated therein, also does not suffer from any fallacy arising from his infracting the relevant parameters held in judicial pronouncements qua the relevant material as stood relied upon, holding vis-à-vis the lands brought to acquisition (a) proximity from time angle and (b) proximity from location angle vis-à-vis the land brought to acquisition. Consequently, the reliance as stood placed by the learned Addl. Consequently, the reliance as stood placed by the learned Addl. District Judge, on the relevant material pronouncing upon the market value borne by the lands of the landowners, as brought to acquisition hence does not suffer from any inherent fallacy. 6. The learned Addl. District Judge had interfered with the award rendered by the learned Land Acquisition Collector wherein he had assessed varying rates of compensation qua contradistinct categories of land. Contrarily, the learned Addl. District Judge had assessed uniform rates of compensation amount qua diverse categories of land. In the learned Addl. District Judge assessing uniform rate of compensation qua diverse categories of land, hence his proceeding to set-aside the award of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, who had assessed diverse rates of compensation, for contradistinct categories of land, he had anvilled his relevant assessment upon a verdict of this Court rendered in a case titled as Gulabi Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP (DB), wherein it is mandated qua uniform rates of compensation being assessable qua lands brought to acquisition, irrespective of their varying classifications, conspicuously when the purpose qua the lands as stand brought to acquisition is common to each category of land. In aftermath, when the purpose for acquiring the lands of the land owners is common to varying categories of lands hence contradistinctivity in their respective classifications also the contradistinctivity in their monetary, hence pales into insignificance. In sequel, the assessment of a uniform rate of compensation for all categories of lands is both just and expedient. 7. Consequently, the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Land Reference Petition No.17-S/4 of 1999 assessing a uniform rate of compensation qua diverse categories of land does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. In sequel, the assessment of a uniform rate of compensation for all categories of lands is both just and expedient. 7. Consequently, the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Land Reference Petition No.17-S/4 of 1999 assessing a uniform rate of compensation qua diverse categories of land does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. The submission addressed before this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the learned Reference Court in infraction of the apposite Harbans Singh’s Formula, on application whereof, the Collector concerned had correctly assessed Rs.14,820/- as compensation with respect to the apple plants existing on the acquired land, hence assessing compensation of Rs.1,34,380/- in respect thereto, infraction whereof constraining this Court to, to the above extent, modify the impugned award, is rejected for the reason that (a) the claimant has examined PW-4 Prem Singh who, had for the reason that the aforesaid formula was prepared in the year 1966 whereas with immense time elapsing since then upto the relevant lands being acquired hence testifed its entailing an obvious escalation to occur in the relevant rates prescribed in the aforesaid formula besides with PW-4 Sh.Prem Singh, testifying that the fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land warranting escalation of compensatory rates held in respect thereto, since the coming into being of Harbans Singh’s Formula upto the date of acquisition of land. Consequently, the unrebutted deposition of PW-4 Prem Singh is accepted also hence the relevant assessment of compensation made on its anvil, warrants no interference. 9. In sequel, the instant appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.