JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - These appeals and cross objections, arising out of common award involve similar questions of facts and law, thus, have been heard and are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. By these appeals, challenge has been laid to enhancement of value of acquired land vide award, dated 30th April, 2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, (hereinafter referred to as ''ADJ'') in land reference cases, being LAC Petition No. 4/07, titled Sidhu Ram versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 1/07, titled Kuldeep Krishan and another versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 2/07, titled Bimla Devi and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 3/07, titled Vijay Kumar versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 5/07, titled Kanwal Krishan and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 6/07, titled Mohan Lal versus Collector Land Acquisition and others; LAC Petition No. 7/07, titled Birbal versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 8/07, titled Kuldeep Krishan and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 9/07, titled Ram Kishan and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 10/07, titled Rekha and another versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 11/07, titled Atma Nand and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 13/07, titled Shadi Lal and another versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 14/07, titled Sat Pal and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 24/09, titled Ram Piari and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 27/09, titled Tripta Devi and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others; LAC Petition No. 32/09, titled Nirmla Devi and others versus The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and others. 3. Land of respondents situated in Village Kotla Khurd in District Una was acquired for public purpose, i.e. construction of railway line from Nangal to Talwara. 3. Land of respondents situated in Village Kotla Khurd in District Una was acquired for public purpose, i.e. construction of railway line from Nangal to Talwara. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') was notified for this purpose on 31st October, 2000, whereafter completing the process under the Act, Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act on 13th January, 2001 determining the value of acquired land on the basis of classification, which reads as under: Sr.No. Kind of land Cost per kanal 1 Chahi 28804.00 2 Barani Abbal 24562.00 3 Ek Fasli Abbal & Do Fasli Doam - 4 Barani Doam & Soam 14400.00 5 Banjar Kadim 246.00 6 Kharkana 4733.00 7 Gair Mumkin Abadi - 8 Other Gair Mumkin 161.00 9 Kharaitar 246 4. Being aggrieved by the value of land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were clubbed together and after leading common evidence in all the petitions, the same were decided by the Learned ADJ vide impugned award redetermining the value of land at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per kanal irrespective of classification of the same alongwith statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Before the Reference Court, Una, land owners have examined seven witnesses and have placed on record sale deeds Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F and also awards Ex. PA and PB, passed by the Reference Court with respect to acquisition of the land for the same purpose, but, in different villages of District Una. Land owners have also relied upon the map Ex. PW4/A to establish the location of the land and effect of severability because of construction of railway line on the land holdings. Land owners have also tendered documents Ex. P1 to P14 to substantiate their claim praying for compensation by determining the value of land as Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs per kanal for Barani Abbal and Chahi land, respectively. 6. Appellant(S)Northern Railway has examined two witnesses to rebut the evidence of land owners and have placed on record awards Mark RX and Ex. RY passed by the Reference Court, Una, with respect to acquisition of land for the same purpose, but, situated in different villages of District Una. 10 lacs per kanal for Barani Abbal and Chahi land, respectively. 6. Appellant(S)Northern Railway has examined two witnesses to rebut the evidence of land owners and have placed on record awards Mark RX and Ex. RY passed by the Reference Court, Una, with respect to acquisition of land for the same purpose, but, situated in different villages of District Una. Besides, appellant(s)Northern Railway has also tendered in evidence charts containing details about acquired land as well as value thereof. Average value has also been placed on record as Ex. RW2/A. 7. Learned ADJ, after considering the evidence on record, has taken into consideration the earlier awards Ex. PA, dated 1st December, 1998 and Ex. PB, dated 19th October, 2000, passed by Reference Court, Una, wherein value of land in Village Ajnauli and Village Dangoli was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- per kanal, respectively. After considering that Ex. RY was pertaining to Village Dangehra and as Village Dangehra was situated far away from Village Kotla Khurd, he had not considered the said award appropriate for determining the value of acquired land. Considering that land pertaining to Ex. PA and Ex. PB was situated in adjacent villages, he made deductions in the value determined in those awards and redetermined the value of acquired land, in present case, at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per kanal irrespective of nature and classification of the land. 8. Mark RX produced by the appellant(s)Northern Railway is a photo copy of certified copy of the award passed by Reference Court wherein, for acquisition of land in Village Ajnauli for the same purpose, the value of land was determined at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per kanal. But, the said document was not considered by the learned ADJ as only photo copy of certified copy of the award was placed on record. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties in the Court, value of land in that case was redetermined by this High Court at the rate of Rs. 1,58,400/- per kanal in RFA No. 130 of 2006, titled Prakash Kaur and others versus LAC and others , (2015) 2 ShimLC 864 . 9. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that learned ADJ has committed an illegality by relying upon the awards Ex. 1,58,400/- per kanal in RFA No. 130 of 2006, titled Prakash Kaur and others versus LAC and others , (2015) 2 ShimLC 864 . 9. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that learned ADJ has committed an illegality by relying upon the awards Ex. PA and PB belonging to the different villages as there is no evidence on record to establish that nature and potential of the land in Village Kotla Khurd and that of Villages Ajnauli and Dangoli was same and in absence of evidence that Villages Ajnauli and Dangoli are adjacent to Village Kotla Khurd, these awards could not have been taken into consideration for determining the value of acquired land. According to him, land under acquisition, in the present case, is different in nature and there is no evidence of similarity of the same with the land of villages involved in Ex. PA and Ex. PB and, therefore, for different nature and potentiality of land, the compensation at different price is required to be determined. 10. He has further submitted that the learned ADJ has made deduction on lesser side and keeping in view the nature of evidence on record, at least 40% deduction, as permitted in RFA No. 21 of 2010, should have been made in present case also. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has relied upon pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Periyar and Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd. versus State of Kerala , (1991) 4 SCC 195 , wherein it has been held that when the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands; and the transaction relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. 12. 12. Judgment of the apex Court in case titled as Jai Prakash and others versus Union of India , (1997) 9 SCC 510 , has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) wherein it has been held that merely because in some neighbouring villages, valuation has been made at a higher rate, it cannot be said that the claimantsland owners must also be given same rate of compensation. 13. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) on para 9 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in case titled as Kanwar Singh and others versus Union of India , (1998) 8 SCC 136 , wherein the apex Court has held that generally, there would be different situation and potentiality of land situated in two different villages and unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same, the same rate of compensation, as awarded to the land owners of one village cannot be granted to the land owners of the another village for the acquisition of land for the same purpose. 14. Pronouncement of the apex Court in case titled as Manoj Kumar etc. versus State of Haryana,2017 SCCOnline(SC) 1262, has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant(s) wherein also it has been held that in absence of evidence of similarity of nature and potential of the land, previous judgment and award cannot be made basis for awarding same compensation to the land owners of the adjacent villages. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for land owners have justified the value redetermined by the learned ADJ on the basis of awards Ex. PA and Ex. PB with submissions that learned ADJ has not awarded the compensation at the same rate as has been awarded in Ex. PA and Ex. PB, but, he has awarded Rs. 90,000/-, which is less than the value of land as determined in Ex. PA and Ex. PB. PA and Ex. PB with submissions that learned ADJ has not awarded the compensation at the same rate as has been awarded in Ex. PA and Ex. PB, but, he has awarded Rs. 90,000/-, which is less than the value of land as determined in Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Referring the judgments relied upon by the appellant(s), it has been submitted that in all the judgments, ratio of law is that in absence of evidence of similarity of nature and potentiality, rate of compensation, as awarded in the previous judgment/award for the land acquired in different village cannot be awarded, but, these pronouncements do not create any legal impediment to the Reference Court to consider such awards as exemplar awards for determination of the value of the acquired land and in present case also, keeping in view the nature and contents of the evidence on record, learned ADJ has rightly awarded Rs. 90,000/- per kanal against the value of Rs. 1,44,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- per kanal awarded in Ex. PA and Ex. PB. 16. Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in present case, was issued on 31st October, 2000. Sale deeds Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B are of the years 1992 and 1993. These pertain to the period seven years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deed Ex. PW1/F is of November, 2003, thus, was executed after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, these sale deeds were rightly discarded by the learned ADJ being not proximate in time to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 17. Sale deeds Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E were executed in July, 1999. There is a gap of more than one year between execution of these sale deeds and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the instant case. Therefore, these sale deeds were also not proximate in time to the acquisition of the land in the present case. 18. Documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P10 are certified copies of mutations attested pursuant to execution of sale deeds Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F and jamabandis with entries of respective mutations in sequel thereto. Ex. P11 is a Shajra Kishatwar (map) of Village Kotla Khurd, which is corresponding the map Ex. PW4/A tendered in evidence by the land owners. 18. Documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P10 are certified copies of mutations attested pursuant to execution of sale deeds Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/F and jamabandis with entries of respective mutations in sequel thereto. Ex. P11 is a Shajra Kishatwar (map) of Village Kotla Khurd, which is corresponding the map Ex. PW4/A tendered in evidence by the land owners. P12 and P13 are copies of jamabandis of Gair Mumkin Sadak. Therefore, these documents are of not of any relevance as the corresponding sale deeds have not been found proximate in time to the land acquisition in question. Ex. P14 is a pamphlet circulated for advertisement by Shiksha Bharti wherein it has been mentioned that an Industrial Training Center and Vocational Training Institute of Shiksha Bharti are situated in Village Kotla. 19. One of the land owners, namely Sidhu Ram, has been examined by the land owners as PW7. In his affidavit, tendered in evidence in examinationinchief, he has deposed that Village Kotla Khurd is adjacent to Una Township having all urban facilities and there are industrial units, School, College, Vocational Training Institute, Industrial Training Center, Government Hospital, Veterinary Hospital and housing colony in the said village. He has also stated that the land owners were also having tubewells and polyhouses in their respective land and, therefore, the land under acquisition was having great potential for earning. This part of his statement has not been questioned in lengthy crossexamination on behalf of the appellant(s)Northern Railway. 20. The existence of these institutions and facilities has also been admitted by RW2 Sham Lal, Patwari of the office of Land Acquisition Collector. Though, RW2 Sham Lal, in his crossexamination, stated that Village Kotla Khurd is situated at a distance of two kilometers of Municipal Council, Una, but, in answer to a question, he has replied that he was not knowing the location of boundary of municipal area. 21. Both, RW1 Joginder Singh, Kanungo in the office of Land Acquisition Collector and RW2 Sham Lal, Patwari, have admitted that there was no upgradation of revenue record of Village Kotla Khurd since 191213. RW1 Joginder Singh has also admitted that average value of the land awarded by Land Acquisition Collector does not disclose the date of sale deeds, location of the land involved therein as well as khasra numbers thereof. RW1 Joginder Singh has also admitted that average value of the land awarded by Land Acquisition Collector does not disclose the date of sale deeds, location of the land involved therein as well as khasra numbers thereof. He has further admitted that construction of railway line has resulted severability of the land holdings of land owners. Despite working in the office of Land Acquisition Collector and remained involved in the acquisition proceedings, in crossexamination, he has deposed that he could not say that Kotla Khurd is adjacent to Una. The fact remains that he has not denied the said fact, but, has avoided to depose so. 22. Ratio of law laid down in Jai Prakash, Kanwar Singh and Manoj Kumar''s cases , cited by the learned counsel for the appellant(s), are not in dispute and it is settled that unless there is evidence of similarity in nature and potential of the land of two villages, the same rate of land cannot be granted for determination of compensation for acquisition of land even for the same purpose. However, in present case, learned ADJ has not awarded the same rate as was awarded for acquisition of land for the same purpose in other villages situated in or around Una town, but, has determined value of land at a considerable lesser rate than as awarded in the awards relied upon by the land owners. Therefore, the said case law relied upon by the appellant(s) is not applicable in present case. 23. Some of the respondentsland owners have also raised the plea that no damages have been awarded on account of loss caused to them for severance of land as a result of acquisition. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that there is no evidence on record with regard to injurious effect on the remaining land of land owners and also there is nothing on record to establish that land owners had to spend any amount to ameliorate the effect of severance, if any. He has placed reliance on Periyar and Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd.''s case , wherein the apex Court has held that where there is no evidence of injurious effect on the remaining land of the claimants/land owners and where the land owners had not expended any money for either constructing any boundary walls, culverts, bridges or roads etc. He has placed reliance on Periyar and Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd.''s case , wherein the apex Court has held that where there is no evidence of injurious effect on the remaining land of the claimants/land owners and where the land owners had not expended any money for either constructing any boundary walls, culverts, bridges or roads etc. for utilization of their remaining land after acquisition, the land owners are not entitled for severance charges as there is no damage due to severance. In present case also, though, RW2 Joginder Singh, Kanungo, has admitted in crossexamination that there is severance of land holdings on account of acquisition of land, however, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of land owners. Therefore, they are not entitled for any damage under this head. 24. In another judgment in case titled as General Manager Northern Railway versus Om Prakash & others,2017 2 HimLR 1009, wherein coordinate Bench of this High Court, after setting aside the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per kanal determined by the Reference Court for acquisition of land for the same purpose in a village of District Una, has remanded the matters to the Reference Court for redetermination thereof on the basis of evidence on record. It is submitted that in that case also, Reference Court had determined the value of land on the basis of an award passed in another reference petition pertaining to a different village, but, there was no evidence of similarity of nature and potential of the land of those two villages. 25. On perusal of the said judgment, I find that there was not only absence of evidence of similarity, potentiality and utility of two different villages, but, the previous award relied upon for determining the value of acquired land was also not part of evidence on record and thus, the matters were remanded back by observing that such previous award which was not part of record of the case could not have been made basis for determining the value whereas, in present case, the awards relied upon by the Reference court has been tendered in evidence as Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Therefore, present case is on different footings than the case referred on behalf of the appellant(s). 26. The sale deeds produced by the land owners have not been found to be proximate in time with acquisition of land question. PA and Ex. PB. Therefore, present case is on different footings than the case referred on behalf of the appellant(s). 26. The sale deeds produced by the land owners have not been found to be proximate in time with acquisition of land question. Appellant(s) has not produced any sale deed and the average value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector has become doubtful as RW1 Joginder Singh himself has admitted that the said average value does not contain the details of sale deeds, location and khasra numbers of land considered for determining the average value and further that Parta (revenue record) of the said village has not been updated since 191213, which would have bearing on estimating the average value of land. There is no other evidence on record except the previous awards relied upon by the parties for determining the value of land. In such a situation, as also observed , such awards in absence of evidence of similarity of nature, potential and utility cannot be made basis for awarding the same compensation for land of another village, but, such awards can always be taken into consideration for determining the value of land with the help of other evidence on record. 27. As noticed above, appellant(s) had also relied upon two previous awards. One of them has only been placed on record as Mark RX wherein land acquisition for the same purpose pertaining to Village Ajnauli, District Una, on the basis of notification, dated 21st March, 1998, issued under Section 4 of the Act, was under consideration. In that award also, previous award Ex. P4 (which has been relied upon by land owners in present case as Ex. PA), wherein value of acquired land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per kanal, was taken into consideration by the Reference Court and value of land was determined at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per kanal. Being a document only marked, the same could not have been taken into consideration, but, as submitted by learned counsel for the land owners, which is also not in dispute, the said award was subject matter in Prakash Kaur''s case , wherein, vide judgment, dated 16th December, 2014, coordinate Bench of this High Court, discarding the award Ex. P4 (in present case, Ex. PA), but, relying upon another previous award Ex. P4 (in present case, Ex. PA), but, relying upon another previous award Ex. AX pertaining to the different village, has determined the value of land at the rate of Rs. 1,58,400/- per kanal. In this case also, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published on 26th March, 1998 for acquisition of the land for the same purpose. The appellant(s) had itself relied upon the valuation of land determined in Mark RX pertaining to land acquisition in Village Ajnauli for determination of value in present case and now, in the said case, the value of land has been enhanced by a coordinate Bench of this High Court from Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,58,400/-. 28. Appellant(S) has also relied upon Ex. RY, a previous award pertaining to Village Dangehra wherein also, notification under Section 4 of the Act, for the same purpose, was issued on 21st March, 1998 and the value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per kanal. The said award was affirmed by this High Court by dismissing appeals filed by appellant(s)Northern Railway in RFA No. 163 of 2008, titled General Manager, Northern Railway versus Gian Chand & others and connected appeals,2014 6 ILR(HP) 1685. There is no evidence for comparing the location of Village Dangehra vizaviz Village Kotla Khurd and also nature and potentiality of land of these two villages. Moreover, value of land determined in this award is lesser than the highest rate, i.e. Rs. 28,804/- awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Thus, in view of provisions of Section 25 of the Act, this award cannot be relied for determining value of land in present case. 29. Land owners have relied upon previous award pertaining to the acquisition of land in Village Ajnauli for the same purpose for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published on 1st October, 1988. It is admitted fact that the said award was not assailed by appellant, but, was implemented as it was and the same has attained finality. In that case, the Reference Court had observed following facts at the time of determining the value: "(i) That the aforesaid land of the petitioners which has been acquired happened to be situated on the boundary of Municipal Committee Una by the side of District Hospital, Una and a shopping complex named as Bhikha market. In that case, the Reference Court had observed following facts at the time of determining the value: "(i) That the aforesaid land of the petitioners which has been acquired happened to be situated on the boundary of Municipal Committee Una by the side of District Hospital, Una and a shopping complex named as Bhikha market. (ii) The acquired land abutted the main road leading from Una to Hamirpur. (iii) The acquired land happened to be situated in the vicinity of village Ajnauli. (iv) The petitioners were growing crop in the acquired land and one of the petitioner Siri Ram had built a shop on the land bearing khasra No. 1184." 30. In present case also, as discussed , PW7 Sidhu Ram has categorically stated that Village Kotla Khurd is situated in periphery of Una Town. Even if version of RW2 Shaml Lal, Patwari, is considered to be correct, this village is situated within two kilometers of MC limits of Una. Though, RW2 Sham Lal, Patwari has stated that the said village is situated within two kilometers of MC limits, but, at the same time, he has also stated that he was not knowing the exact boundary of MC area. RW1 Joginder Singh, Kanungo, has avoided to answer this question. The fact stated by PW7 Sidhu Ram, that this village is in the periphery of Una Town, has not been disputed in crossexamination. Numerous schools, established institutions, industrial units, hospitals, etc. situated and other facilities available in the village, stated in the statement of PW7 Sidhu Ram, have been endorsed by RW2 Sham Lal, Patwari, in his crossexamination. 31. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is apparent that Village Kotla Khurd is also having all the facilities which are available in Una township. Even if there is no specific averment of land owners that the land of Village Kotla Khurd is having th same and similar nature, potential and utility like the land of Village Ajnauli, it can easily be inferred that the land of Kotla Khurd was having nature, potential and utility like outskirts of a township. In award Ex. PA, in the year 1998, value of land situated in periphery of Una township, has been determined at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per kanal whereas, in present case, value of land has been determined as Rs. 90,000/- per kanal only. 32. In award Ex. PA, in the year 1998, value of land situated in periphery of Una township, has been determined at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per kanal whereas, in present case, value of land has been determined as Rs. 90,000/- per kanal only. 32. Land owners have also relied upon another previous award, Ex. PB, pertaining to Village Dangoli, wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3rd October, 2000, for acquisition of land for the same purpose. The said award was also passed after taking into consideration the award Ex. PA, but, in the said award also, value of land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per kanal. There is no evidence with respect to location of Village Dangoli on record. There is no relevant evidence on record to compare the said award with acquisition in present case. Therefore, Ex. PB cannot be made basis for determining value of land in present case. 33. Relying upon RFAs No. 18 of 2009 and 21 of 2010, it is also canvassed on behalf of the appellant(s) that Reference Court should have made the deduction from 33% to 40% at the time of determining the value of land. First of all, the land has been acquired for construction of railway line for which purpose, appellant(s) had to do nothing for development of the said land, but, only to lay down the railway line. Therefore, principle of deduction on account of development charges is not relevant in present case. Sale deeds of small chunks, relied upon by land owners, have not been found to be relevant and, therefore, deduction on account of small chunk involved in the sale deeds in comparison to the large chunk of land acquired is also not applicable. 34. The Reference Court has relied upon previous awards, but, has not awarded the same rate. In Prakash Kaur''s case , for Village Ajnauli, as referred hereinabove, this High Court has awarded Rs. 1,58,400/- per kanal and in Ex. PA, appellant(s) itself has accepted the value of land determined in the same village, i.e. Village Ajnauli, at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per kanal. Village Ajnauli is in periphery of Una Town and Village Kotla Khurd, in present case, is also in the periphery of Una Town. 1,58,400/- per kanal and in Ex. PA, appellant(s) itself has accepted the value of land determined in the same village, i.e. Village Ajnauli, at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per kanal. Village Ajnauli is in periphery of Una Town and Village Kotla Khurd, in present case, is also in the periphery of Una Town. There is positive evidence of all facilities of urban area in Kotla Khurd, but, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 90,000/- per kanal only, which is 43% lesser than the value determined in Prakash Kaur''s case and also 38% less than the value determined in Ex. PA. Valuation at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- is also lesser than the value of land determined in award Ex. PB. 35. In the cross objections, a ground, general in nature, has been taken that the amount so awarded by the Reference Court is totally inadequate and insufficient and the Reference Court ought to have assessed the value of land at the rate of two lacs per kanal. Further, that the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 90,000/- per kanal by ignoring the evidence brought on record by the land owners and the same is based upon surmises and conjectures. Nothing has been pointed out to substantiate the ground of cross objections, as also evident from the discussions supra. Therefore, the crossobjections are also liable to be dismissed. 36. For aforesaid discussions, I find that for the evidence available on record, learned ADJ has rightly determined the value of land at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per kanal after considering the evidence in its entirety. There is no illegality or perversity in the determination of the value of land. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out either in appeals or in cross objections. 37. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and all the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed. Needless to say that the land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them. 38. There shall be no order as to costs. Record be sent back.