JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur Judge (oral) These appeals arising out of common award dated 17.7.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. (herein after referred to as Reference Court) in Reference Petition Nos. 58 of 2014(2013), 57 of 2014 (2013), 56 of 2014(2013), 53 of 2014(2013), 3 of 2014(2013), 54 of 2014(2013) and 52 of 2014(2013), are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of law and fact, to be considered on the basis of common evidence led in lead case Reference Petition No. 58 of 2014(2013) Manohar Lal & others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Parvati Hydro Electric Project, Larji, is involved. 2. Government of Himachal Pradesh has acquired land in village Phati Ralia Kothi Bhallan, District Kullu for public purpose i.e. for establishment of Parvati Hydro Electric Project, by resorting to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act). 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with amount of compensation determined by Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, wherein Reference Court has awarded uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.19,580/- per biswa on the basis of another award dated 3.4.2013 (Ex. PW-1/D) passed by Reference Court with respect to the same village i.e. Phati Ralia Kothi Bhallan, District Kullu with respect to for land acquired for the same purpose i.e. establishing Parvati Hydro Electric Project. 4. Present appeals have been preferred against enhancement awarded by Reference Court solely on the ground that Reference Court has committed a mistake by relying upon award Ex. PW-1/D for enhancement of compensation as before passing of impugned award on 17.7.2014 by Reference Court, the award Ex. PW-1/D had already been set aside by this High Court in RFA No. 4144 of 2013, titled Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Surat Ram and others and connected matters remanding the matter to the Reference Court for deciding afresh. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that now case related to award Ex. PW-1/D has also been decided afresh vide award dated 25.11.2014 passed by Reference Court after remand and value of land as determined earlier in Ex. Surat Ram and others and connected matters remanding the matter to the Reference Court for deciding afresh. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that now case related to award Ex. PW-1/D has also been decided afresh vide award dated 25.11.2014 passed by Reference Court after remand and value of land as determined earlier in Ex. PW- 1/D, has been maintained and he has also placed on record certified copy of award dated 25.11.2014, passed by Reference Court afresh in Reference Petition No. 2 of 2012 (33 of 2014) and connected Reference Petitions, after remand by this High Court in cases remanded in RFA No. 4144 of 2013. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the passing of fresh award by Reference Court, placed on record, rather has submitted that the said award also stands complied with, whereby Reference Court has again determined the value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.19,580/- per biwas on the date of notification of Section 4 of the Act. It is also undisputed that the land subject matter in Reference Petition No. 2 of 2012, decided vide award dated 25.11.2014 and also in present appeals was acquired for one and the same purpose and is also situated in the same village, having the same nature and potentiality. 7. The Apex Court in Narendera and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 has held that once a fair compensation under the Act is determined judiciously, all land owners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof and a different treatment to the identically situated persons would amount to discrimination. 8. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no ground for interference in the impugned award, as the value of land as determined by the Reference Court in award Ex. PW-1/D with respect to the same village qua the land acquired for the same purpose having the same nature and potentiality also stands reaffirmed after remand and has been accepted and implemented by the appellants. 9. In view of above discussion, impugned award passed by Reference Court is upheld and appeals are dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.