JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - In these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiary(ies) of the acquisition proceedings have assailed the award dated 02.07.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., in Petition No.22NL/4 of 2011, titled as Harbans Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector H.P.P.W.D., & others, alongwith other connected matters. 2. For public purpose, namely, construction of PinjoreBaddi-Nalagarh-Swarghat road, land was acquired by the State. The proceedings under Section 4 of the Act, were published in the official gazette on 25.08.2007. The Collector Land Acquisition H.P.P.W.D., passed his Award No.9/2010 dated 12.05.2010, in terms whereof, market value of the acquired land came to be assessed at different rates, ranging from Rs. 9346/- per biswa to Rs. 58,153/- per biswa, classification/category wise. 3. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act, seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land, which stands decided in terms of impugned award dated 02.07.2015, in terms whereof, the market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha, on uniform basis, irrespective of the classification and category of land. 4. Poor agriculturists, residents of village Sauri Gujaran, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., have been fighting for adjudication of their rightful claims since the year, 2007. In all, nine reference petitions for several claims stand decided by the Reference Court. The total land involved is approximately 9-17-0 bighas. The public purpose for which the land stands acquired is construction of road. The Collector Land Acquisition, determined the market value of the acquired land category and classification wise ranging from Rs. 9346/- per biswa to Rs. 58,153/- per biswa, whereas, the Reference Court has re-determined the same @ Rs. 75,000/- per biswa (i.e. Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha), irrespective of its category and classification, the basis being the evidence led by the claimants in the shape of sale transaction dated 11.09.2007 (Ex.PW.2/B) and the ocular evidence. 5. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for public purpose. It is also not disputed before this Court that the land was acquired for widening of Pinjore-Baddi-Nalagarh-Swarghat (NH-21A) road. In support of their claim, the claimants have referred to and relied upon as also proven several exemplar sale deeds and awards passed by the Reference Court. It is also not disputed before this Court that the land was acquired for widening of Pinjore-Baddi-Nalagarh-Swarghat (NH-21A) road. In support of their claim, the claimants have referred to and relied upon as also proven several exemplar sale deeds and awards passed by the Reference Court. However, the Reference Court, while discarding such documentary evidence considered only sale transaction dated 11.09.2007 (Ex.PW.2/B). 6. Before the same is dealt with, at this point in time, one must examine the evidence led by the State/beneficiaries, who are aggrieved of the passing of the impugned award. One witness, namely, Roshan Lal, Assistant Engineer, NH Sub Division, H.P.P.W.D. (RW.1), has placed on record sale deeds (Ex.RW.1/B to Ex.RW.1/C). Well, save and except for placing on record the said sale transaction he has said nothing in his testimony and as such, such sale transactions cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence. 7. In contrast, the claimants have placed on record and proven sale transaction dated 11.09.2007 (Ex.PW.2/B). Vendor, Bhagat Ram (PW.4), has duly proved the same. Also through the ocular evidence i.e. testimony of claimants Shri Pal Chand (PW.1) and Bhagat Ram (PW.4), it has come on record that the land sold vide said exemplar sale deed is similar, if not identical, in its potential, nature, class and classification qua the land. 8. From the conjoint reading of testimony of Shri Pal Chand (PW.1), Preet Mohinder (PW.2), Krishan Parkash (PW.3), Bhagat Ram (PW.4), Chhotu Ram (PW.5) and Rattan Chand (PW.6), it is also evidently clear that the land acquired is abutting the State Highway and in fact was acquired for the construction of National Highway No.21-A. Also it has come that the area in question stands fully developed and in close proximity, close by there are commercial establishments. In fact, from the reading of their testimonies, it is quite apparent that the whole area stands fully developed. There are schools; public offices; hospitals; markets; business establishments; and that the acquired land had the potential of being put to commercial use. It is in this backdrop, one finds the view taken by the Reference Court, in not applying the principle of deduction on the market value, so determined by an exemplar sale deed (Ex.PW.2/B), pertaining to small parcel of land, to be justified. It is in this backdrop, one finds the view taken by the Reference Court, in not applying the principle of deduction on the market value, so determined by an exemplar sale deed (Ex.PW.2/B), pertaining to small parcel of land, to be justified. Significantly, exemplar sale deed dated 11.09.2007 (Ex.PW.2/B) pertains to the sale transaction in the very same village whereby 2 biswas of land stood sold @ Rs. 75000/- per biswa (Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha). This was nearer to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land. 9. One finds that immediately with the initiation of the acquisition proceedings the price of the land had shot up, which is evident from another exemplar sale deed dated 07.05.2008 (Ex.PW.2/A), whereby the land of similar parcel stood sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,500/- per biswa (Rs. 32,50,000/- per bigha). The said sale transaction being subsequent in point in time stands rejected by the Reference Court. Why this Court has referred to the said sale deed is only to highlight the trend in the increase of cost of land in the area, which as is evident from the testimonies of claimants'' witnesses has fast developed into an industrial township. Thus, the price re-determined by the Reference Court, cannot be said to be on higher side. 10. Insofar as determination of the market value of the acquired land on uniform basis is concerned, the point rightly stands not agitated before this Court, for the entire land stands fully utilized for public purpose. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award, for the findings returned by the Reference Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous or not based on the correct and complete appreciation of facts or law. As such, present appeals stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.