JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein against the award rendered on 9.8.2007 by the learned District Judge (F), Shimla. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of original petitioners Hari Nand whose land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 35/83, Khasra No. 247, measuring 1-89-62 hectares situated in Mauja Bharyal, Pargana Kemli, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. was acquired by the State of H.P. Notification to this effect under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Dainik Tribune on 1.5.1997 and it was also published in the official gazette of H.P. Government on 24.05.1997. It is pleaded that the adequate and proper market value of the acquired land has not been given to the petitioners whereas it was at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per bigha as per on the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was made. It is also pleaded that by acquisition of this land the remaining land of the petitioners has been badly segmented for which they are required to obtain extra compensation. 3. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was subjected to impeachment by way of the land holders/land owners preferring a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla. In the impugned award, the learned District Judge on a consideration of the material as laid before him had enhanced compensation qua the land subjected to acquisition. The learned District Judge, in his impugned award has come to enhance the market value of the acquired land to Rs.14,770/- per bigha irrespective of the classification of lands brought to acquisition. 4. The appellants herein/respondents before the learned Court below stand aggrieved by the Award rendered by the learned District Judge (F), Shimla, and consequently by way of the present appeal laid before this Court has challenged the impugned award. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length. 6. 4. The appellants herein/respondents before the learned Court below stand aggrieved by the Award rendered by the learned District Judge (F), Shimla, and consequently by way of the present appeal laid before this Court has challenged the impugned award. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard at length. 6. The learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla while pronouncing the award in Land Reference Petition No.4-S/4 of 2006/2000 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 here at, meted reverence to all the relevant factors enjoined to be borne in mind whereupon he allowed the reference petition preferred there before by the aggrieved landowners, wherein they assailed the insufficiency of the compensation amount as assessed qua his lands by the Land Acquisition Collector. Moreover, in the learned District Judge meeting deference to the relevant evidentiary material while assessing compensation qua the lands of the aggrieved land owners has hence not wandered astray from the trite principles of law. 7. 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, 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 District Judge (F), Shimla on the relevant material pronouncing upon the market value borne by the land of the landowners brought to acquisition, does not suffer from any inherent fallacy. 8. The learned District Judge (F), Shimla 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 District Judge (Forest), Shimla had assessed uniform rates of compensation amount qua diverse categories of land. 8. The learned District Judge (F), Shimla 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 District Judge (Forest), Shimla had assessed uniform rates of compensation amount qua diverse categories of land. The learned District Judge (F), Shimla 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) Page-9 wherein it is mandated qua uniform rate 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 classification also the contradistinctivity in their monetary value hence pales into insignificance. In sequel, the assessment of a uniform rate of compensation for all categories of lands is both just and expedient. Consequently, the award of the learned District Judge, Forest, Shimla in Land Reference No. 4-S/4 of 2006/2000 assessing a uniform rate of compensation qua diverse categories of land does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. In sequel, the instant appeal is dismissed and the award impugned herebefore is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. It is made clear that claimants are entitled to receive the compensation in the instant case, only if they have not received the compensation amount with respect to the very same land in some other RFA.