JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Appellant H.P. State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as Board) through Land Acquisition Collector, HPSEB has acquired land situated in Village Khudar, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. for construction of Uhl Hydel Project Stage-III. 2. These appeals have been preferred against common award dated 30.9.2011 passed by learned District Judge in land Reference Petition No. 17 of 2007 titled as Jonda Ram Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and other connected Reference Petition Nos. 19, 23, 26, 28 to 30 and 33 to 36 of 2007 decided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act), whereby rate of land under acquisition ranging from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.4,10,000/- per bigha awarded by Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 295 dated 7.6.2006 fixed on the basis of nature and classification of the land, has been enhanced to a single uniform rate i.e. Rs.4,25,000/- per bigha, irrespective of nature and classification of land in question. 3. Learned District Judge had consolidated all Reference Petitions, referred supra, vide order dated 23.3.2009 and evidence was recorded only in Reference Petition No. 17 of 2007 titled Jonda Ram Vs. HPSEB which was ordered to be read for decision in all Reference Petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have also gone through the records. 5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned District Judge has erred in awarding uniform rate for entire acquired land ignoring the classification and nature of the land. According to him, nature and classification of land and purpose for which it was being utilized by land owners were relevant factors required to be considered for determining the amount of compensation and learned District Judge has wrongly adopted comparative sale method instead of belting system based on nature and classification of land. Learned counsel submits that learned District Judge has also failed to consider the fact that land in question was acquired for construction of Hydel Project benefiting people of area, therefore, some reasonable deduction should have been made from amount of compensation to be paid to the land owners. 6. Learned counsel submits that learned District Judge has also failed to consider the fact that land in question was acquired for construction of Hydel Project benefiting people of area, therefore, some reasonable deduction should have been made from amount of compensation to be paid to the land owners. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported impugned award by stating that entire land in question belongs to same revenue village, having identical potential and further that nature and classification continued in revenue record on the basis of century old entries without updating the same according to factual position on spot, cannot be taken into consideration for determining value of the lands in question. 7. It is settled law that where entire area is similarly situated, market value of the lands under acquisition is to be assessed as a single unit irrespective of its classification and nature, ignoring the purpose to which it was being put prior to acquisition as well as one it is likely to put thereafter. (See Gulabi and Etc. Vs. State of H.P. AIR 1998 HP 9 ). 8. The Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298 has held that the principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If similar area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. 9. It is also settled that when the entire land acquired belongs to one block, classification of the same into different categories is not reasonable. In case acquired lands is to be used/developed as a single unit for a purpose having no relevancy with quality of land, the classification of land completely looses its significance. (See Land Acquisition Officer Vs. L. Kamalamma (1998) 2 SCC 385 , H.P. Housing Board Vs. Ram Lal and others 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64 , Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs. Dilla Ram Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007). Where lands can be consolidated into one single unit with little difference between one stretch of land with another and different lands are capable of being developed in the same manner, market value of such lands can be determined by using comparative unit method. Comparable sale method and awarding single uniform rate for acquiring similarly situated land irrespective of classification and nature after taking into consideration similarity of the acquired lands is considered to be a legal and valid method. (See Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh & others (2005) 12 SCC 564 and Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh and others (2010) 11 SCC 581 ). 10. (See Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh & others (2005) 12 SCC 564 and Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh and others (2010) 11 SCC 581 ). 10. PW-1 Harish and PW-3 Prabh Dayal (land owners) were examined as witnesses on behalf of land owners, who filed their affidavits in evidence, stating therein that acquired land is situated near Bassi Hydel Project (Uhl Stage-III) and also in between two State Highways, which passes parallel to the acquired land and the entire land acquired is one category, i.e. Dhani Abal and categorization into different categories by Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of revenue record, which was never updated according to factual position, is wrong and the land has been acquired mainly for construction of water channel in a shape of strip measuring about 50-60 feet. In their cross-examination, nothing adverse to their interest, shattering their claim has been elucidated. These witnesses have categorically denied that land in question yield only one crop, rather they have clarified that land owners were taking 2-3 crops, besides growing vegetables in the land in question. 11. Land owners have also placed on record two sale deeds Ex. PA and Ex. PB and also jamabandies of land in question Ex. PC to PG. Sale deed Ex. PA pertains to the same village. Whereas sale deed Ex. PB pertains to different village. PW-2 Joginder vendee of sale deed Ex. PA has also been examined as witness to prove the said sale deed. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.7.2003 and sale deed Ex. PA was executed on 12.6.2003. 12. PW-2 Prabh Dayal in his evidence stated that he had purchased a piece of land measuring 0-1-13 bigha situated in Village Khudar for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- from one Roshan Lal resident of same village vide sale deed No. 179 dated 12.6.2003 (Ex. PA). He further stated that land purchased by him is similarly situated to the acquired land of all land owners, having the same market value and potentiality. He also stated that acquired land is situated in fast developing place Khudar situated near Jogindernagar town, having commercial and tourist activities with potentiality for building and trade purposes. According to sale deed Ex. PA, market value of land comes to Rs.4,84,800/- per bigha. 13. Sale deed Ex. He also stated that acquired land is situated in fast developing place Khudar situated near Jogindernagar town, having commercial and tourist activities with potentiality for building and trade purposes. According to sale deed Ex. PA, market value of land comes to Rs.4,84,800/- per bigha. 13. Sale deed Ex. PB pertains to some other village and landlords have not placed on record anything showing that land sold vide sale deed Ex. PB was having the same potential and value as of the land in question in the present proceedings. Learned District Judge has also and rightly so, not taken the said sale deed into consideration. 14. RW-1 Amar Singh, only witness examined by the Board, has stated that acquired land is situated 7 Kilometers from Jogindernagar and 1½ Kilometers from Bassi Power House and about 20% of acquired land is water logged which can only be used for paddy crop and there is no tourist spot in the acquired village and after evaluating value of fruit plants through Horticulture department and structure by Board as per HPPWD norms, compensation on the basis of average and market value of the land has been given on the basis of enhanced average of the land. In cross-examination he admitted that objections have been filed before the Collector regarding assessment and two parallel State highways crosses through this village and there is habitation on both sides of acquired land. 15. Except examining RW-1, the Board has not led any evidence in support of its plea. The Board has not placed any material on record to show that any part of land acquired is less advantageously situated to the land for which highest compensation has been awarded. In his statement RW-1 has not even uttered a single word discrediting the evidence of landowners/claimants disproving their claim that entire area is similarly situated. All lands in question belong to the same revenue village situated in between two State highways, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, entire land in question has rightly been considered a single unit by learned District Judge for awarding a single uniform rate, irrespective of nature and classification recorded in the revenue records. 16. All lands in question belong to the same revenue village situated in between two State highways, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, entire land in question has rightly been considered a single unit by learned District Judge for awarding a single uniform rate, irrespective of nature and classification recorded in the revenue records. 16. Deduction by way of development charges is permissible in those cases where acquisition of land enhances the value of adjacent land and also involves development of area such as construction of roads and other basic amenities etc. Deduction out of amount of compensation payable on the acquired land is permissible by taking into consideration extent of expenditure involved for development and area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to enhance utility of land. 17. In present case, plea of deduction of sum amount by way of development charges is also not sustainable, as in the present case, the land has been acquired for construction of channel for Hydel Project which has no link with the development of land acquired or land adjacent to it. There is no material on record to establish entitlement of the appellants for deduction in compensation amount on account of development charges. 18. As per sale deed Ex. PA, rate of land comes out to Rs.4,84,000/- per bigha. The sale deed was executed one month prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The date of sale deed, the land involved in the sale deed has proximity with the date of notification as well as the land acquired for construction of Hydel Project. There is no evidence on record to rebut Ex. PA or to prove that Ex. PA was not genuine or the value of land mentioned in Ex. PA is exorbitant. 19. Land involved in sale deed Ex. PA is a small chunk whereas land under acquisition is large in size. Highest price awarded by Land Acquisition Collector is Rs.4,10,000/- per bigha. As per Section 25 of the Act, compensation awarded by Court cannot be less than compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Learned District Judge has also followed principle of deduction to be made keeping in view comparatively small chunk involved in sale deed and large area under acquisition. Highest price awarded by Land Acquisition Collector is Rs.4,10,000/- per bigha. As per Section 25 of the Act, compensation awarded by Court cannot be less than compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Learned District Judge has also followed principle of deduction to be made keeping in view comparatively small chunk involved in sale deed and large area under acquisition. Learned District Judge has awarded uniform rate i.e. Rs.4,25,000/- per bigha, which is slightly higher i.e. Rs.15,000/- higher than the highest rate awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, but Rs.59,800/- less than Rs.4,84,800/- i.e. rate of land proved by sale deed Ex. PA. There is more than 12% deduction. No further deduction is warranted in given facts. 20. Learned District Judge has appreciated and considered material on record correctly, completely and in right perspective. There was sufficient, cogent and reliable material before learned District Judge for re-determining the market value in terms of impugned award. Impugned award is in consonance with settled law of land. For no infirmity, illegality or perversity, no ground for interference in the same is made out. 21. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in present appeals, hence the award passed by learned District Judge is affirmed and the present appeals are dismissed.