JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - In this appeal, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the claimants have assailed the award dated 29.04.2017, passed by District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P., in Land Reference RBT No.5-S/4 of 2017/2013, titled as Sh.Rajinder Singh Pirta & others vs. The Principal Secretary (PWD) to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2 & others. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Chamaru-Jachli-Mathaik road, the State initiated acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 30.10.2008. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Award No.7/2011, dated 6.07.2011. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired land classification wise ranging from Rs. 398-62 to Rs. 5,414-96 per sq. mt. 3. Aggrieved thereof, reference petition came to be filed by the claimants, which was adjudicated, in terms of the impugned award dated 29.04.2017. 4. The claimants lay challenge to the award on two counts: (a) Since whole of the land was utilized for public purpose, they ought to have awarded rate on uniform basis without any differentiation of classification/category of land; and (b) the statutory interest ought to have been paid from the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act and not from the date of passing of the award, as is so done by the Reference Court. 5. On both the counts, appeal needs to be allowed. This Court, based on the decision rendered by the Apex Court, has already held that if the land is fully utilized for public purpose, then amount needs to be awarded on uniform basis. As such, claimants would be entitled to such rates as stands awarded for highest category of land, which is Rs. 5,414-96 per sq.mt. for category of land Kayar Awal instead of Rs. 2,657-48 per sq.mt. as awarded for category of land Bakhal Doyam. 6. Now 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. 7. as awarded for category of land Bakhal Doyam. 6. Now 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. 7. The Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others , (2010) 11 SCC 581 , uniformly determined the market value of the acquired land irrespective of classification and category. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for the public purpose. As such, principle of law laid down in the said decision, stands correctly applied to the attending facts. 8. In Union of India vs. 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. 9. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. 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. 10. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. , (1998) AIR H.P. 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal and Others. , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. 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. 11. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Another. vs. Dilla Ram,2008 LatestHLJ(HP) 1007 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh , 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. 12. Insofar as second issue is concerned, this issue is no longer res integra. 12. Insofar as second issue is concerned, this issue is no longer res integra. The compensation has to be paid on the basis of interest from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 13. In view of the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sunder Versus Union of India , (2001) 7 SCC 211 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Collector Versus Kaila and Others , (2010) 1 ShimLC 25 , wherein it is held that the interest for the acquired land is to be paid only under the provisions and in terms of the Act, which would become applicable only with the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Undisputedly, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 30.10.2008. As such, claimants would be entitled to interest from such date @ 9% for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15%. 14. Under these circumstances, the impugned award dated 29.04.2017, passed by District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P., in Land Reference RBT No.5-S/4 of 2017/2013, titled as Sh.Rajinder Singh Pirta & others vs. The Principal Secretary (PWD) to the Government of H.P., Shimla-2 & others, stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.