JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This appeal and its connected matters have arisen from common award dated 26.07.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, in Reference Petition No. 20 of 2006 and its connected reference petitions No. 27, 28, 31 to 33, 37, 62 of 2003, 67, 70, 73, 77, 79, 81, 82, 86, 61, 43, 44, 46 to 49, 51, 53, 54, 56 of 2004, 16, 18, 19, 23, 26 and 33 of 2006, whereby while arriving at a conclusion that the compensation awarded should have been determined and awarded at flat rates, irrespective of nature and category of the acquired land, has redetermined the market value thereof at flat rates i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha and accordingly enhanced the compensation and awarded the same to the respondents herein (petitioners-claimants in the trial Court) together with all statutory benefits. 2. Since the legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on common grounds in all these appeals, therefore, the same are clubbed for hearing and disposal by a common judgment in order to avoid repetition of facts and also the evidence available on record as well as conflicting findings. 3. The petitioners-claimants are residents of village Kayan, Post Office, Dhwal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The appellant-Board i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation in short ‘NTPC’ was in need of land in the said village for public purpose, namely, construction of ‘Kol Dam Project’ commonly known as ‘Kol Dam’. The notification under Section 4 of the H.P. Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bearing No. Vidyut-CH-(5)-58/2000 dated 11.12.2000 was issued by the Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The said notification was given wide publicity as per the mandate of the Act. Thereafter, all codal formalities prescribed under Sections 6, 7 and 8 were complied with by the respondent-Land Acquisition Collector-NTPC Limited (Kol Dam Hydro Project, Sundernagar), one of the respondents in these appeals. 4. The respondent-Collector issued notice under Section 9 of the Act to the right holders including the respondents-claimants herein and thereafter announced award No. 2 of 2002 on 19.07.2002 and thereby determined the market value of different kind of acquired land as under:- Barrani Abbal Rs.4,35,447.26 Per bigha Barani Doyam Rs.3,74,969.20 Per bigha Banjar Kable Kast Rs.90,695.68 Per bigha Kharyatar Rs.70,508.82 Per bigha Gair Mumkin Rs.3,54,243.50 Per bigha 5. Dissatisfied with the determination of the market value of the acquired land and award of compensation, the claimants-respondents preferred petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation on the grounds inter-alia that the acquired land is situated adjacent to Sundernagar-Tattapani road, which area is rich in minerals and growing of medicinal plants. The acquired land had got potentiality of being used for commercial purpose. Also that two famous industrial houses i.e. Associated Cement Company and Ambuja have already set-up their cement plants near the acquired land. The market value of the same was claimed by them as Rs.25,00,000/- per bigha. On these submissions, they had sought the enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land together with all statutory benefits. 6. The petitions, however, were contested by the beneficiary, appellant herein, on the ground of maintainability and that when the claimants have not received the compensation under protest, they are estopped by their own act and conduct from claiming the same to be inadequate. It was also claimed that the acquired land was situated in most backward area and after its acquisition; the same has been developed and made suitable for construction of dam. Reiterating their stand that adequate compensation has already been given to the respondents-claimants, all the references were sought to be dismissed. 7. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation in respect of the structure raised over the suit land as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the reference petition is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief. 8. The petitioners, in support of their case, have examined Bhinder Singh (PW-1), Prema (PW-2), Ramji (PW-3), Birbal (PW-4), Lekh Ram (PW-5), Salho (PW-6) and Prem Lal (PW-7). They have also placed reliance on various sale instances of land in the area marked as Ext. PW-1/C to Ext. PW-1/E. Besides, the previous award of the Court Ext. P-B, vide which the references pertaining to the acquisition of acquired land in the same village i.e. Kayan determined by learned Reference Court as Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha has also been pressed in service. The respondents, on the other hand, have produced in evidence the sale instances Ext. RA, Ext. RB, Ext. RC and copy of order Ex.RA/1. 9. P-B, vide which the references pertaining to the acquisition of acquired land in the same village i.e. Kayan determined by learned Reference Court as Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha has also been pressed in service. The respondents, on the other hand, have produced in evidence the sale instances Ext. RA, Ext. RB, Ext. RC and copy of order Ex.RA/1. 9. Perusal of impugned award reveals that learned Reference Court has not deemed it appropriate to rely upon the sale instances produced in evidence by the petitioners-claimants, respondents herein and also the acquiring agency, being not proved to be genuine and bonafide transactions of sale. Therefore, the previous award of the Court Ext. PB alone was made basis to determine the market value of the acquired land at flat rates i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of its nature and kind and awarded the compensation to the respondents-claimants accordingly. 10. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that the same is highly unjust, illegal, and arbitrary against law as well as facts of the case. Learned Reference Court below has allegedly erred in law while basing the impugned award on the sole evidence i.e. previous award of the Court, whereas, the market value of the acquired land was required to be determined at such rates prevalent at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The exemplar sale deeds Ext. RA and Ext. RB produced in evidence by the respondents were wrongly rejected. When the exemplar sale deeds Ext. PW-1/C to Ext. PW-1/E were not acted upon by learned Reference Court below, the compensation could have not been enhanced at all on the basis of sole evidence i.e. previous award of the Court Ext. P-B. The market value of the acquired land could have not been determined as Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha. 11. On hearing Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-Board and learned counsel representing the respective respondents as well as going through the record, the common case of the parties on both sides is that the acquired land came to be submerged on the construction of dam by the beneficiary. There is no evidence on record of either any requirement or developmental activity being carried out on the spot. There is no evidence on record of either any requirement or developmental activity being carried out on the spot. While the claimants are satisfied with the award passed by learned Reference Court below, it is the beneficiary i.e. NTPC has preferred the present appeals in this Court. 12. It is well settled at this stage that the land acquired for common purpose like in the case in hand i.e. construction of Kol Dam, the market value thereof has to be determined at flat rates, irrespective of its nature and kind. Support in this regard can be drawn from a recent judgment of this Court in RFA No. 190 of 2012 titled HPSEB Limited versus Amar Singh and its connected matters, decided on 24.05.2017. The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows: “9. On hearing Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-Board and Sh. H.S.Rangra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants as well as going through the record, it would not be improper to conclude that learned Reference Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity in determining the market value of the acquired land at flat rates irrespective of kind and nature of the acquired land and awarded the compensation to the petitioners-claimants accordingly, together with all statutory benefits. The land has been acquired for the public purpose, namely, ‘Construction of Uhl Hydro Project, Stage-III’. Therefore, when Uhl Hydro Electric Project, Stage-III was to be constructed on the acquired land, its category, potentiality and utility loses significance. Law on the issue is no more res- ntegra as this Court in RFA No. 24 of 2010, titled as Vidya Sagar vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and others and its connected matters decided on 9.5.2016 has held as under: “18. As already discussed, the Land Acquisition Collector has determined different rates qua different kind of land. The reference Court below while arriving at a conclusion that the acquisition is for the public purpose namely construction of railway line, no distinction could have been made viz-a-viz cultivable and non-cultivable land while determining its market value in view of its comparative utility to remain as it is irrespective of its category. The reference Court below while arriving at a conclusion that the acquisition is for the public purpose namely construction of railway line, no distinction could have been made viz-a-viz cultivable and non-cultivable land while determining its market value in view of its comparative utility to remain as it is irrespective of its category. Learned reference Court has also placed reliance to substantiate this part of the findings so recorded with the help of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in L.A.C Solan and another V. Bhoop Ram along with its connected matters, 1997(2) Sim.L.C. 229 and also that of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1998(2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC(1) SC. The findings so recorded by learned reference Court below are absolutely legal and valid as it is well established at this stage that when the land is acquired for a public purpose namely construction of road or for that matter construction of railway line as in these appeals, its market value should be determined at flat rates, irrespective of its nature and category. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer V. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “12. The Collector has awarded compensation of acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003(3) Shim L.C. 64. The acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on flat rate of Rs. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on flat rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be used/developed for the construction of the road as a single unit and therefore, classification of the land looses significance. In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per biswa of Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more than the market value assessed by learned District Judge.” 19. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhoop Ram’s case supra qua this aspect of the matter has also held as under: “11……..The Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the market value at a lesser rate for the acquired land, which was classified as Bangar Doem, Bangar Kadim, Ghasni, Charand and Gair Mumkin but in our view the classification of acquired land for the agricultural purpose is not relevant looking to the common purpose of acquisition for the construction of road and uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square meter or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land……..” 10. Similar is the ratio of the judgment, again that of this Court, in RFA No. 246 of 2008, titled as Dadu Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others and its connected matters, decided on 29.3.2016. The relevant text reads as follows: “18. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land……..” 10. Similar is the ratio of the judgment, again that of this Court, in RFA No. 246 of 2008, titled as Dadu Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others and its connected matters, decided on 29.3.2016. The relevant text reads as follows: “18. Now, if coming to the 2nd point, it is seen that learned reference Court has categorized the land in two categories i.e. ‘Majrua’ and ‘Gair Majrua’, of course on the request of the petitioners, as is apparent from the perusal of award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. In view of the evidence available on record, prior to inception of Kol Dam Project, no developmental activities had taken place there by that time. Meaning thereby that the entire area was in the process of being developed. The land was acquired for the construction of project. Therefore, taking into consideration, the purpose for which the land was acquired, the same should not have been classified ‘Majrua’ or ‘Gair Majrua’ for the reason that the land was acquired for the construction of project and as such, the classification of the acquired land completely looses significance. I am drawing support in this regard from the judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer and another v. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007, the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “12. The Collector has awarded compensation of the acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3)Shim.L.C 64 the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3)Shim.L.C 64 the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on the flat rate of Rs. 200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005 (12) SCC 564, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be used/developed for the construction of the road as a single unit and, therefore, classification of the land looses significance. In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per biswa of Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more than the market value assessed by learned District Judge.” 19. The point in issue, therefore, is squarely covered by the judgment supra. Learned reference Court, therefore, should have determined the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its categorization. It is seen that the Court below has assessed the market value of the land categorized as ‘Majrua’ @ Rs. 4,68,497.00/- and ‘Gair Majrua’ @ Rs. 1,04,117.44/-. In view of the above, this Court determine the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its nature as Rs. 4,68,497.00/-.” 13. It is seen that the Court below has assessed the market value of the land categorized as ‘Majrua’ @ Rs. 4,68,497.00/- and ‘Gair Majrua’ @ Rs. 1,04,117.44/-. In view of the above, this Court determine the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its nature as Rs. 4,68,497.00/-.” 13. Not only this, but a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 13th December, 2016 rendered in RFA No. 325 of 2010 titled NTPC Limited versus Amar Singh and another, pertaining to the acquired land situated in same village i.e. Kayan and acquired vide same notification as well as for the same public purpose i.e. construction of Kol Dam has upheld the determination of the market value of the acquired land at flat rates i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- irrespective of its nature and category. Therefore, the point in issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondents-claimants in these appeals. Being so, further elaboration of the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence available on record is not required. 14. Learned counsel representing the appellant-beneficiary has failed to point out any dissimilarity in these cases and those decided by the judgments in Amar Singh’s case ibid. Since in the case in hand, the acquired land has been used/developed for the construction of a dam, as a single unit, therefore, the classification thereof as made by Land Acquisition Collector loses significance. The factors, such as nature of the acquired land, its quality and the same is situated near road or at distant places also lose significance. On behalf of the appellant-Board, nothing to the contrary has been brought on record to persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by learned Reference Court below. Therefore, all the appeals being devoid of any merit deserve dismissal. 15. In view of what has been said hereinabove, all these appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated be placed on the record of each of the connected appeals.