JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. All these appeals arise out of the common award passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu in Reference Petition No. 1 of 2007 titled Lot Ram v. Collector Land Acquisition N.H.P.C. P.H.E.P at Larji and another and other batch matters dated 5.6.2010 being the lead case. Prayer made in these appeals is to enhance the said award dated 5.6.2010 primarily on the ground that the compensation assessed in these reference petitions by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu is on the lower side. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals are that a Notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 22.3.2003 for the purpose of acquiring land of the claimant(s) and other persons situated adjacent to Larji and Salwar Bazar and adjoining to Aut-Sainj, Neuli, Kartah road. 3. The award so passed by the Collector was challenged by way of various land reference petitions by all land owners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Reference Petitions so filed by all land owners were clubbed together by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu and disposed of the same by a common award dated 5.6.2010. 4. The award so passed by learned court below stands assailed by present appellants who were petitioners before learned court below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the award so passed by learned court below is perverse as the findings so returned by learned court below are not borne out from the records of the case and further learned court below has not taken into consideration the appropriate market value of the land in issue. On these grounds, enhancement of the impugned award is prayed for. No other point was urged. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there was neither any perversity nor any illegality to the award so passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu and as there is no merit in these appeals, the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as award passed by learned court below. 8. District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu and as there is no merit in these appeals, the same be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as award passed by learned court below. 8. It has been held by this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 and batch matters decided on 22.10.2016 which incidentally also pertain to the land acquired by present respondent No.1 for the same project as under: "3. Evidently, land situate in Phati Kotla and Phati Kanon were categorized as one and price prevalent in Phati Manyashi was taken into consideration for determining the market value of the entire land. Noticeably, Collector Land Acquisition himself, depending upon classification and category, determined the market value of the acquired land, ranging from Rs. 9,840/- to Rs. 2,46,000/- per Bigha. 4. Aggrieved thereof, various land owners filed reference petitions, under Section 18 of the Act, which as per record, were clubbed vide order dated 26.4.2008. Land Reference Petition No.1/2007 (RBT No.30/2007) was treated to be the lead case, in which, as mutually agreed, common evidence led by the parties. 5. The petitions came to be allowed in terms of common impugned award dated 5.6.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., inter alia in the following terms:- a) "In view of my aforesaid discussion, the reference petition(s) succeed and it are allowed partly, with costs. The reference petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,67,772/- per bigha in respect of acquired land for all the categories of land. ......." [Emphasis supplied] 6. It is a matter of record that the acquirer/beneficiary has not preferred any appeal and only the claimants have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act. 7. The challenge in these appeals is on the following grounds:- (a) The Court ignored the fact that the Collector himself had found the lands situate in Phati Kanon and Kotla to be similar with that of land situate in Phati Manyashi. (b) There is no rationale in re-determination of the market value at lower price, inasmuch as the District Judge erred in ignoring the fact that the Collector himself determined the market value of land of category Ropa Awwal, @ Rs. 2,46,000/-per Bigha. (b) There is no rationale in re-determination of the market value at lower price, inasmuch as the District Judge erred in ignoring the fact that the Collector himself determined the market value of land of category Ropa Awwal, @ Rs. 2,46,000/-per Bigha. (c) The Court erred in ignoring its earlier award Ex.P-2, passed in Land Reference Petition No.58/2007, titled as Tedhi Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition, Parbati H.E. Project (NHPC) and another, wherein amount pertaining to land situate in village Manyashi, Suchain and Raila came to be re-determined @ Rs. 3,56,000 per Bigha. (d) The Court below erred in taking into account sale deeds tendered in evidence by the beneficiary. (e) The Court erred in taking into account exemplar sale deeds placed on record by the claimants. 8. Having come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled toward of uniform rates, regardless of classification and category of the land, the Court below could not have re-determined the market value at a price lower than the one which the Collector itself had determined with respect to category ''Ropa Awwal''. Impropriety and illegality is thus writ large. 9. One finds that the acquirers examined two witnesses namely Shri Mahinder Singh (RW-1) and Shri Nandan (RW-2) who simplytendered in evidence exemplar sale deeds (Ex.R33, Ex.R35, Ex.R37, Ex.R39, Ex.R41, Ex.R43, Ex.R45, Ex.R47, Ex.R49, Ex.R51, Ex.R53, Ex.R55, Ex.R57, Ex.R59, Ex.R61,Ex.R/63, Ex.R65, Ex.R67, Ex.R69, Ex.R71, Ex.R73, Ex.R75, Ex.R77 and Ex.R79). 10. This Court vide judgment dated 1.9.2016 passed in RFA No.229 of 2009, titled as Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. v. Tedhi Singh & another, has held as under:- "6. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. of India(supra) has observed as under:- "26. In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on record for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired. 27. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. Such transactions in terms of the aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be. 28. Section 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term "acceptance of evidence" relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that the contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word "may". A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be exercised judicially i.e. upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. 29. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 , this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus: (SCC p. 535, para 13) "It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document ''may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document'' it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence." ... ... ... ... ... ... 31. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah''s case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah''s case (supra) is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (supra). 32. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this view of the Court in the Narasaiah''s case as the correct view. 33. The submission of Mr. G. Chandrasekhar to the effect that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regard the transaction contained therein or the Court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in terms of Section 51-A of the Act cannot be accepted as the Court may or may not receive a certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. When materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the Court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on records for determining the issues raised before it and in the said process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other. ... ... ... 35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the Court may act on the basis of such presumption. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the Court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the Court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any, question is raised in this behalf." (Emphasis supplied) 7. ------ ---- ---. 8. However, in para-40 of the report itself the Apex Court clarified that comparative nature of the location, suitability or marketability of the exemplar sale deed was necessarily required to be proved by the proponent. 11. Now, neither the vendor nor the vendee stands examined by the beneficiary. Also, there is nothing on record to establish similarity with regard to potentiality, use and nature of the acquired land with that of these exemplar sale transactions. 12. Witnesses Shri Mahinder Singh (RW-1) and Shri Nandan (RW-2) examined by the respondents are not privy to such transactions. They are not familiar with the parties; nature and/or category of land; the circumstances under which the transactions took place. Hence, exemplar sale deeds placed on record by the acquirer could not have been considered for the purposes of adjudicating respective rights and contentions of the parties in determination of a fair market value, more so in the teeth of evidence of rebuttal led by the claimants. 13. It is a settled principle of law that a petition under Section 18 of the Act is to be treated as a plaint and onus to establish true and correct market value of the acquired land, is always upon the claimants. 14. The claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for award of compensation which they rely upon. However, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for award of compensation which they rely upon. However, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinize the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708 ) . 15. It is not disputed that, with respect to land situate at Phati Bunga, this Court, while interfering with the award passed by the District Judge, re-determined the market value of the acquired land and vide judgment dated 3.9.2008, passed in RFA No.31 of 2006, titled as Collector Land Acquisition v. Yog Raj and others, along with other connected matters, observed that the prevalent market value of the acquired land was approximately Rs. 40,000/- per Biswa (Rs. 8,00,000/- per Bigha). Even the Special Leave Petition No.4410-4445/2009, titled as Collector Land Acq., NHPC v. Khub Ram and ors. filed by the acquirer came to be dismissed by Hon''ble the apex Court. The land acquired was for the very same public purpose and almost at the same point in time. 16. Be that as it may, it is also a matter of record that award Ex.P-2 stands affirmed by this Court in Tedhi Singh (supra). Re-determination of the market value of the land situate in village Raila, Suchain and Manyashi @ Rs. 3,56,000/- per Bigha was upheld by the Court. 17. In the instant case, maximum land is situate in village Phati Manyashi, as is evident from the Collector''s award dated 6.1.2005. Hence the claimants can safely rely upon the same for just determination of the market value. 18. To substantiate the claim on the basis of this award, claimants have examined Shri Bhim Sen (PW-8) and Smt. Rameshwari (PW-9). They are categorical that the acquired land is similar and comparable in terms of its potential use and utility with that of exemplar sale deeds. Hence, the Courts below erred in ignoring and not correctly appreciating this material on record. They are categorical that the acquired land is similar and comparable in terms of its potential use and utility with that of exemplar sale deeds. Hence, the Courts below erred in ignoring and not correctly appreciating this material on record. The claimants can be held entitled, at least for such sums as stood awarded therein, which acquisition proceedings came to be commenced with the publication of notification on 22.3.2003, a date similar to the instant acquisition proceedings. 19. Now in the instant case, apart from the evidence proved on record, award passed in Tedhi Singh (supra), one finds that claimants have also led evidence in the form of exemplar sale deeds, reference whereof is there in Para-24 of the impugned award. 20. Noticeably, these sale transactions (Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW12/B and Ex.P-1) pertain to sale of similar category of land situate in Phati Kanon, Kotla and Manyashi. It be only observed that on 2.1.2003, land in village Phati Manyashi came to be sold @ Rs. 60,500/- per Biswa. Now, all these sale transactions stand proved on record through the testimonies of Shri Chokas Ram (PW-1), Yugal Kishore (PW-2), Bhim Sen (PW-8) and Shri Pawan Kumar (PW-12), who un-rebuttedly have also deposed about the similarity of potentiality, use, nature and classification of the acquired land with that of the exemplar sale land, and more particularly that of village Phati Manyashi. Now if average of all these sale transactions is taken into account, then the market value of the acquired land would work out to be Rs. 44,000/- per Biswa (Rs. 8,80,000/- per Bigha = 20 Biswas = 1 Bigha). But then one cannot forget the extent of the acquired land and the exemplar sale deeds. 21. As such, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 4 SCC 506 , wherein apex Court upheld award of compensation on uniform rates by applying deduction to the extent of 40% to 50%, the market value in terms of the exemplar sale deeds would work out to Rs. 22,000/- per Biswa (taking deduction of 50%). 22. Deduction to the extent of 60% also stands applied by the apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 4 SCC 506 . 23. 22,000/- per Biswa (taking deduction of 50%). 22. Deduction to the extent of 60% also stands applied by the apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 4 SCC 506 . 23. Now in the instant case, geographical location and situation of the land; existing use of the land; its potentiality and comparability stands established on record. The entire acquired land even though a large chunk, could be put to agricultural use. 24. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents, points out that interest of justice would be met, if claimants are awarded such sums, which in any event are not higher than what stands awarded in the case of Tedhi Singh (supra). 25. Though the acquirer is not aggrieved of the fact that the District judge itself uniformly awarded compensation regardless of classification and category of land, but it be only observed that there is no error in adopting such approach. 26. It is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 27. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. 28. In Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564 , while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 29. Further, in Nelson Fernades v. 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. 30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. v. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing Board v. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003 (3) Shim. 30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. v. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing Board v. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64 , which judgment has attained finality as S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board v. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 31. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. v. Dilla Ram{Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates. 32. It is a matter of record that the entire land was put to public purpose. Power project stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in the uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land. 33. Now what is that real market value of the acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay. 34. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when let out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town, is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town, is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. ( Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568 ). 35. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 1] , the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the Court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 36. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal[ (1989) 2 SCC 329 ] , the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. 37. As such, taking a holistic view of the matter, present appeals, with the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 17,800/- per Biswa (Rs. 3,56,000/- per Bigha), along with all statutory benefits and interest, are allowed and disposed of accordingly. Impugned award dated 5.6.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in Ref. Pet. No.1 of 2007/RBT Pet. No.30 of 2007, titled as Lot Ram v. Collector Land Acquisition and another , along with connected matters, stands modified accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of." 9. The findings returned by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the above mentioned judgment squarely apply to the facts of present appeals also and these appeals in fact are squarely covered by the judgment so delivered by Coordinate Bench of this Court, which was not disputed during the course of arguments. 10. In view of above discussion, taking a holistic view of the matter, present appeals, with the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 17,800/- per Biswa (Rs. 10. In view of above discussion, taking a holistic view of the matter, present appeals, with the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 17,800/- per Biswa (Rs. 3,56,000/- per Bigha), along with all statutory benefits and interest, are allowed and disposed of accordingly. Impugned award dated 5.6.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in Ref. Pet. No.1 of 2007/RBT Pet. No.30 of 2007, titled as Lot Ram v. Collector Land Acquisition and another, along with connected matters, stands modified accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stand disposed of.