JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since, all the aforementioned appeals, arise from, a common verdict, pronounced by the learned District Judge, Mandi, upon, respectively constituted there before reference petitions, by the appellants herein/landowners concerned, hence, all the aforesaid RFAs, are, amenable for a common verdict, being renderable thereon. 2. The appellants/landowners' land, stood, acquired for construction, of, Sundernagar-Palahi Dharanda via Khilra road. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/landowners, has, contended with much vigour (i) that the learned reference Court has committed, a, gross impropriety, in, not meteing deference to Ex. PA, (ii) exhibit whereof, comprises a valid, and, reckonable sale exemplar, vis-a-vis, the land borne in Mauza Khilra, mauza whereof is proximate to mauza Kalhaud. However, the aforesaid contention reared before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would, hold tenacity, upon, cogent evidence standing adduced, with a vivid display therein, (iii) qua, the, land borne in Ex. PA, standing located in proximity, vis-a-vis, the land brought to acquisition; (iv) the execution of Ex. PA occurring in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, issuance of the apt statutory notification. However, a perusal, of, the testification rendered by PW-3, in, land Reference Petition No. 66 of 2008, and, witness whereof, rather tendered into evidence Ex. PA, omits to make any palpable display therein, vis-a-vis, the afore trite parameters hence begetting their apt satiation, (v) whereas, meteings of satiation thereto, was imperative, for, hence, Ex. PA being construable, to, constitute, a, reckonable sale exemplar, for, on its anvil, hence both just and reasonable compensation, being assessed, vis-a-vis, the land of the appellants/landowners concerned. Consequently, the discarding, by the learned reference Court, of, the sale exemplar, borne in Ex. PA, is not un-merit-worthy. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended (a) that the meteing, of, 50% deduction, by the learned Reference Court, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount determined, on anvil of sale exemplar, borne in Ex. PB, being ridden with, a, gross impropriety. PA, is not un-merit-worthy. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended (a) that the meteing, of, 50% deduction, by the learned Reference Court, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount determined, on anvil of sale exemplar, borne in Ex. PB, being ridden with, a, gross impropriety. The afore submission carries immense weight or vigour, (b) given this Court while relying, upon, para 13 occurring, in, a judgment, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Bhagwathula Samanna and others vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298 , proceeding, to, in paragraphs No. 10 to 14, of, a judgment rendered in a case titled as G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh and others, reported in 2014 (3) Shim. LC 1356, (c) hence making a conclusion, that, it being not an inflexible proposition of law, that, on anvil of market value, of small tracts of land, hence, compensation being not assessable, vis-a-vis, large tracts of land, (d) importantly when evidence surges forth, vis-a-vis, the acquisition of large tracts of land, in their entirety, being evidently advantageous or capable of being used, for the very purpose for which the small tracts of land are used, and, also when they stand situated in a developed area, with, little or no requirement for further development. It has also been therein held (e) that, if, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record, for, proving that each part of the large tracts of land or the wide expanse of land, subjected to acquisition, rather not holding either potentiality or market value, equivalent to the smaller tracts, comprised in Ex. PW1/C, thereupon deductions being not meteable. Bearing in mind the afore expostulation of law, and when hereat, no evidence, in consonance therewith hence emerges, vis-a-vis Ex. PW1/C, comprising an inapt sale exemplar, thereupon the meteings, of, deductions, vis-a-vis the compensation amount, is hence rather concomitantly, rendered unjust, (i) rather it can, hence, be concluded, that, consequently, given the location, of, large tracts of land, in, the vicinity of a developed area, and, hence were holding, the, potentiality, to fetch, a, price equivalent to the small tracts, of land, borne in Ex. PW1/C, whereupon, too, the meteings, of, deductions, is also rendered impermissible. PW1/C, whereupon, too, the meteings, of, deductions, is also rendered impermissible. The relevant paragraphs No. 10 to 14, of, the verdict of this Court in G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh and others, reported in 2014 (3) Shim. LC 1356, read as under:- "10. Even previously in judgments reported, in 1997 (2) SLC 229 and 1998 (2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC (1) SC, it has been mandated that when the purpose of acquisition is common, the award of compensation at a uniform rate for different classification/categories of land, is, tenable. Hence, it can be forthrightly concluded, that, the award of a uniform rate of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge Una for different lands bearing different classifications/categories, is, not legally infirm, especially when on acquisition they acquire a uniform potentiality. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has concerted, to also espouse before this Court, that even though, reliance upon Ex. PW1/C by the learned Court below, is not misplaced, in as much, as it fulfilled the relevant enshrined legal parameter for its invocation/applicability, in as much, as (i) it being proximate to the land subjected to acquisition, as also (ii) its execution being contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Nonetheless, he has canvassed that (i) given the largeness or expanse and immensity/immenseness of size of the land subjected to acquisition vis-a-vis the area of the land sold, comprised in Ex. PW 1/C, the market value of the land comprised in Ex. PW1/C could not have been, as a whole applied to the entire land subjected to the acquisition, unless, deductions for developmental costs as warranted and mandated by the decisions relied upon by him had been made/accorded. Since, the learned Additional District Judge, Una omitted to give/make deductions from the total compensation arrived at/worked out on the basis of the value of the land sold/comprised in Ex. PW1/C, whereas, he was enjoined to do so, he has committed a grave legal error necessitating interference by this Court. 12. Since, the learned Additional District Judge, Una omitted to give/make deductions from the total compensation arrived at/worked out on the basis of the value of the land sold/comprised in Ex. PW1/C, whereas, he was enjoined to do so, he has committed a grave legal error necessitating interference by this Court. 12. While proceeding to gauge the sinew of the above contention canvassed before this Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that the judgments cited in support of the above view espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable, vis-a-vis, the facts at hand, hence, in the humble view of this Court, not reliable as (a) all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, concert to marshal the view, of, deductions from the lump sum compensation assessed qua a large tract of land on the score of market value of a small/minimal piece of land being made. In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations, is that, for the market value of small a tract of land to be comprising an admissible parameter, for, on its strength working out the compensation for a large tract of land, it is, imperative that deductions towards development costs is made. However, distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was made for the development of sites for allotment for housing purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. Therefore, given the purpose for which the land was acquired, in, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, deductions were enjoined to be imperative or necessary, as, the entity for whom the land was brought under acquisition, would be entailed/obliged, to, make the land fit for the purpose for which it was acquired, in as much, as, such an entity concomitantly being driven to incur exorbitant expenses, towards its development for rendering it fit for use. As such, given the magnified increase in the scale of economies or given the ultimate manifold increase, in, the scale of economies or such incurring of exorbitant expenses on development, hence, acquiring the capacity to proportionately reduce their profit, as such, rendering the project for which the land was acquired financially viable, or, to obviate the losses accruing from the steep rates of compensation as may be awarded that deductions were permitted. In other words, deduction from compensation mandated to not render the venture and the purpose for which the land was acquired, in the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, to be financially un-whole some, as well as, unviable. More so, when the land is acquired for State holdings, building/housing agencies or the agencies carrying out and engaged in profiteering work. However, in contradistinction, to the facts of the judgments, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, the land has been subjected to acquisition, for the purpose of construction of a railway track. In the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway track, it has assumed the role of doing so, as, a welfare measure and not as a profiteering measure. The railway track would continue to be owned by the appellant, in distinction to the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, where the agency for whom the land was subjected to acquisition, would on developing the land, sell it further or gain profit. (b) The appellant has omitted to adduce cogent evidence on record displaying the fact that each of the land holder, whose land was subjected to acquisition was holding a vast expanse of land. Omission to adduce into evidence such proof demonstrative of each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition owing a wide expanse or a large sized holding, vis-a-vis, the sale transaction comprised in Ex. PW1/C, a firm conclusion can be formed, that, the size of the holding or the size of the land of the each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition was more or less equal to or not disproportionately larger in size to the area of the land comprised in Ex. PW1/C. Hence, there was no jurisdictional error, on the part of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in not affording deduction, given the smallness in size of the land comprised, in, Ex. PW1/C, vis-a-vis, the lands of each of the individual land owners, whose land was subjected to acquisition. PW1/C. Hence, there was no jurisdictional error, on the part of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in not affording deduction, given the smallness in size of the land comprised, in, Ex. PW1/C, vis-a-vis, the lands of each of the individual land owners, whose land was subjected to acquisition. Besides, it has also not been cogently proved by the appellant that any part of the land owned by each of the land owners and subjected to acquisition did not bear potentiality nor would have commanded a market value, lesser than the value earned by the expanse of land comprised in Ex. PW1/C. It appears, that, given the proximity of the acquired land, as deposed by PW-4 Gulzar Singh and PW-3 Gurbachan Singh, to educational institution, temple and abadi of the villagers it enjoyed or commanded immense market value. Therefore, when each parcel of the land subjected to acquisition bore a market value, equivalent to the land subjected to acquisition, hence, there was, no, legal error committed by the learned Additional District Judge in relying upon for the market value depicted, in, Ex. PW1/C and applying it to the entire tracts of the land subjected to acquisition even, when it was smaller in size vis-a-vis the land subjected to the acquisition. 13. It is also significant here to refer to the judgment reported in Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1992 SC 2298 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has mandated:- "13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction; and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10 per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed." 14. The citation aforesaid enshrines the principle that it is not a absolute proposition of law that on the score of market value of small tracts of land the compensation for large tracts of land, is, impermissible. For assessing compensation for large tracts of land, the market value of smaller tracts of land can be relied upon, in case a larger tracts of land in its entirety, is advantageous or capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller tracts are used and, is, also situated in a developed area, with litter or no requirement of further development. Besides, the principle of deduction need not be applied, when this Court, has, held that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that each part of the large tracts of the land or the wide expanse of land subjected to acquisition, does not have either potentiality or market value equivalent to the smaller tracts, comprised in Ex. PW1/C, relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge for assessing compensation, it can, hence be concluded, that, consequently, given the location of the large tracts of land, in, the vicinity of a developed area, it, was fetching the price equivalent to the small tracts of land, hence, deduction was not permissible. More, so, when for reasons aforesaid deductions are not awardable." 4. Consequently, bearing in mind, the afore expostulation of law, occurring in paragraph No. 10 to 14 of the verdict of this Court, rendered in Gulzar Singh's case (supra), reiteratedly this Court further concludes (a) qua when the purpose, of, acquisition, is, for construction a road, and, when hence the meteing of deductions, vis-a-vis, compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court, on anvil, of, the apposite sale exemplar, is rather validly meteable, (b) only for covering the apt exorbitant costs, accruable for developing the acquired lands, for theirs ultimately rearing hence handsome profits, vis-a-vis, the authority, wherefrom whom, the acquisition is made, (c) thereupon, the principle of meteing of deductions, when rather is squarely attracted and applicable, vis-a-vis, the afore scenario, and, is obviously in applicable, vis-a-vis, constructions, of, road, (d) thereupon hence, the meteing of deduction by the learned reference court, vis-a-vis, compensation amount, as assessed in respect, of, the lands of the landowners/appellants herein, on anvil, of, the sale exemplar borne in Ex. PB, rather, is, rendered legally frail. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 5,00,000/- per bigha, irrespective of the kind, and, nature of the land, at the time of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, and, the appellants/landowners are also held entitled, to all the statutory benefits, under the Act as adjudged by the learned reference Court, on the aforesaid adjudged market value of the land. Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the above extent only. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.