JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - All these appeals, arising out of the common award passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in land reference petition No. 10/4 of 2014 titled Swaroop and Others vs. the Land Acquisition Collector along with connected reference petitions No. 1,2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of 2014, are being decided together by this judgment as common question of law and facts based on the evidence led in one lead case is involved therein. 2. State of H.P. has acquired the land of respondents/land owners/claimants along with others for the purpose of construction of Bamta-Ali Khad-ChandpurKandraur road in village Kandraur, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur after undertaking the process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by passing a common award i.e. award No. 2, dated 28.5.2010 under Section 11 of the Act wherein the Collector had awarded following market value of acquired land according to classification of land:- Kohali Dom @ Rs. 9.81,094/- per Bigha Andarli Abbal @ Rs. 9.81,094/- -do- Andarli Dom @ Rs. 8,81,563/- -do- Baharli Abbal @ Rs. 5,68,750/- -do- Baharli Dom @ Rs. 3,55,469/- -do- Banjar & Khadyater @ Rs. 1,27,969/- -do- 3. Section 25 of the Act provides that the Court cannot award the compensation lesser than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act. 4. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired is relevant and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, the market value of the land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective or their nature and classification is to be awarded. (See H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh , (2005) 12 SCC 564, Gulabi vs. State of H.P. , (1998) 1 ShimLC 41 ; Executive Engineer and another vs. Dilla Ram,2008 2 LatestHLJ 1007 and HPSEB Ltd. vs. Amar Singh and connected matter,2017 4 HimLR 2467) 5. (See H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh , (2005) 12 SCC 564, Gulabi vs. State of H.P. , (1998) 1 ShimLC 41 ; Executive Engineer and another vs. Dilla Ram,2008 2 LatestHLJ 1007 and HPSEB Ltd. vs. Amar Singh and connected matter,2017 4 HimLR 2467) 5. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. (See: Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Gujarat , (2005) 4 SCC 789 , Himmat Singh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another , (2013) 16 SCC 392 , and Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others vs. State of Karnataka and another , (2015) 10 SCC 469 ). 6. It is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. 9,81,094/- per bigha. The appellant/State has itself placed on record the award passed by the Collector is Ext.RW2/A indicating highest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 9,81,094/- per bigha. 7. Land owners/claimants have examined six witnesses and have also relied upon sale deeds Ext.PW4/A, Ext.PW5/B, Ext.PW5/C and award Ext.PW5/D, whereas, the appellant/State has examined two witnesses and has relied upon the impugned award passed by the Collector placed on record as Ext.RW2/A and standing order No. 28 Ext.RW2/B along with market value of land Ext.RW2/C. 8. Learned District Judge has not found favour to consider the sale deeds and award relied upon by land owners for the reason that land involved in sale deeds Ext.PW5/B and Ext.PW5/C was too small i.e. one biswa each dis-entitling these sale deeds from considering as exemplar sale deeds. Award Ext.PW5/D has also rightly been discarded by learned District Judge on the ground that, though, same is related to acquisition of land for the same purpose i.e. construction of road as in the present cases, however, land involved therein was of village Benla Brahmna and there is no evidence on record to establish the equivalence of nature and potential of land of both villages i.e. Benla Brahmna and Kandraur. Now only sale deed Ext.PW4/A relied upon by land owners remains for consideration. On the basis of it, value of land becomes Rs 8 lac per bigha. Now only sale deed Ext.PW4/A relied upon by land owners remains for consideration. On the basis of it, value of land becomes Rs 8 lac per bigha. However, the said amount is lesser than the highest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The land owners/claimants are entitled for uniform rate in the present case and said rate cannot be lesser than the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In case value of land is determined on the basis of Ext.PW4/A, the same will be lesser than the highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, learned District Judge has rightly ignored the said sale deeds also. 9. Learned District Judge has determined the value of acquired land on the basis of award approved and relied by the appellant(s)/State. There is no other evidence on record to evaluate the value of land and there is no illegality or perversity in awarding the compensation on the basis of rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, I find no ground for interference in the impugned award passed by learned District Judge. 10. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, respondents/land owners are held entitled to compensation of acquired land at uniform rate of Rs 9,81,094/- per bigha irrespective of nature, classification and category of land along with all consequential statutory benefits including interest and solatium under the Act. 11. Resultantly, all appeals are dismissed. Record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith.