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 beneficiary(ies) of the acquisition proceedings have assailed the award dated 18.09.2014, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No.12-S/4 of 2010, titled as Sh.Leela Dutt alias Amar Singh & others vs. State of H.P. through Secretary (Public Works) to the Government of H.P. & another. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. For public purpose, namely, construction of Sandhoot-Kakret road, land of the claimants was acquired by the State. Acquisition proceedings commenced with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16.06.1997. Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired land vide his Award No.1/2000, dated 07.01.2000, under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector Land Acquisition awarded compensation classification wise, ranging from Rs. 1,714.29 to Rs. 57,142.86 per bigha. 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 18.09.2014, in terms whereof, the market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ Rs. 6,66,667/- per bigha, on uniform basis, irrespective of the classification and category of land. 4. The Reference Court re-determined the market value on the basis of award dated 15.12.2007 (Ex.PW.1/B), passed in Land Reference Petition No.1-S/4 of 2007/01, titled as Hem Ram vs. State of H.P. and another, so placed on record by the claimants, whereby claimants were held entitled to such rates as stands awarded for highest category of land, which is Rs. 6,66,667/- per bigha for category of land Kuhal instead of Rs. 57,142.86 per bigha, as awarded for the same category of land by the Collector Land Acquisition vide award No.1/2000, dated 07.01.2000. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award merits no interference. The Reference Court on the basis of award dated 15.12.2007 (Ex.PW.1/B), undisputedly had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,66,667/- per bigha, qua the best category of the land, on uniform basis with respect to entire land, situate in Village Sandhoot, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. 6. The Reference Court on the basis of award dated 15.12.2007 (Ex.PW.1/B), undisputedly had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,66,667/- per bigha, qua the best category of the land, on uniform basis with respect to entire land, situate in Village Sandhoot, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. 6. It is not in dispute that the entire land stands fully utilized for the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings took place. It is also not in dispute that no activity of development was carried out by the beneficiary. It is also a settled principle of law that when the entire land is put to use, then the compensation to be awarded has to be on the basis of uniformity. 7. 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. 8. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others , (2010) 11 SCC 581 , Collector Land Acquisition, uniformly determined the market value of the acquired land. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for the public purpose. As such, ratio of law laid down in Haridwar Development Authority , stands correctly applied to the attending facts. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Another. vs. Dilla Ram,2008 LatestHLJ 1007 (HP)} 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. 13. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Sandhoot-Kakret stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land. 14. Hence the Reference Court rightly determined the compensation on the basis of material available on record. In the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeal stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.