JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (oral) All these appeals arising out of the common award dated 17.07.2013 passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court) are being decided by this common judgment as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. Land Reference Petition No.24-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Inder Singh & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.25-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Inder Singh & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.26-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Inder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.27-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Med Ram & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.28-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Bakshi Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.29-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Praveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.30-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Inder Singh & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; Reference Petition No.32-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Roshan Lal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another; and Reference Petition No.33-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Kanhaya & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, arising out of Award No.32 of 2005, dated 22.01.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and Reference Petition No.31-S/4 of 2012/06, titled as Inder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, arising out of Award No.36 of 2005, dated 26.02.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, with respect to the land of Village Keer, Tehsil Shimla (Rural), District Shimla, H.P., were clubbed together by the Reference Court and evidence was led in one lead case i.e. Reference Petition No.24-S/4 of 2012-06, titled as Inder Singh & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-State has acquired the land situated in 5 Villages, namely, Nagrhi, Salana, Lagru, Keer and Sari, for construction of Salana-Sari link road, by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after issuing Notification No.PBW-B(A) (7)-1-68/97 dated 01.11.1997, under Section 4 of the Act, last publication whereof, took place on 20.12.1997. After completing the process, Land Acquisition Collector had passed Award Nos.32 of 2005, dated 22.01.2005 and 36 of 2005, dated 26.02.2005, awarding uniform rates to the land owners of Village Keer @ Rs.30,000/- per bigha. 4. It is also noticeable that with respect to other four Villages, the Land Acquisition Collector had announced the Award during the years 2000-2001 causing the land owners of Village Keer to approach this Court by filing a CWP No.141 of 2003, titled as Inder Singh vs. State of H.P., resultantly, leading to the announcement of Award Nos.32 of 2005 and 36 of 2005 by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Awards announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners had preferred Land Reference Petitions detailed hereinabove, wherein, they had examined seven witnesses to substantiate their claim. Inder Singh (PW.1), Shankar Lal (PW.4), Kanhaya Lal (PW.5), Bakshi Ram (PW.6) and Roshan Lal (PW.7) are the land owner claimants. Whereas, Bhajan Dass (PW.2) is Patwari in the Office of Land Acquisition Collector and Geeta Ram (PW.3) is Investigator Grade-II in the office of Labour Bureau, Shimla. Appellant-State had examined one witness to dislodge the claim of land owners 6. The land owners have put reliance on Award No.15/2000, dated 30.12.2000 (Ex.PW.1/B) and Award No.1/2001, dated 02.02.2001 (Ex.PW.1/D), passed by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to acquisition of land in Villages Nagrhi and Sari, wherein, the Land Acquisition Collector, on the basis of rates determined by the District Collector, has awarded amount of compensation on the basis of classification of land and value of land was assessed as under:- (I) Kuhal Rs.10,00,000/- Per Bigha (II) Bangar-I Rs.5,50,000/- Per Bigha (III) Bangar-II Rs.4,40,000/- Per Bigha (IV) Bangar-III Rs.1,40,000/- Per Bigha (V) Banjer Rs.70,000/- Per Bigha (VI) Ghasni Rs.30,000/- Per Bigha 7. Ajeet Kapoor (RW.1), Assistant Engineer, HP PWD, in his examination-inchief, has stated that the land in question is situated at a distance of 10-11 kilometers from the Highway and it was a hilly area without any remarkable development and there was no Kuhal and thus he has justified the rate of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In his cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance about the fact that under the same Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, land of other Villages, namely, Lagru, Salana, Nagrhi and Sari, was also acquired alongwith the land of Village Keer. In his cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance about the fact that under the same Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, land of other Villages, namely, Lagru, Salana, Nagrhi and Sari, was also acquired alongwith the land of Village Keer. He has also expressed his ignorance about any proceeding of acquisition in the present case and also about the value of land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to Villages Nagrhi and Sari. Therefore, there is no worth in statement of this witness. 8. In the Reference Petition preferred by the land owners, it is submitted in paragraph-1 that the land in Village Keer was acquired in pursuance to Notification No. No.PBW-B(A) (7)-1-68/97 dated 01.11.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act alongwith the land of four Villages, namely, Lagru, Salana, Nagrhi and Sari, situated in Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. In reply to the petition, this fact has been admitted to be correct in paragraph- 1 and also in paragraph-6, wherein it is stated that land of all the five Villages, namely, Keer, Lagru, Salana, Nagrhi and Sari, was acquired under the same Notification. The said fact has also been reiterated in the evidence of Inder Singh (PW.1), which is not disputed in his cross-examination on behalf of the appellant-State. 9. It is further the case of the land owners that from Shoghi to Sari first Village is Nagrhi and last Village is Sari and Village Keer is situated in between these two Villages. This fact, stated in paragraph-6 of the Reference Petition, has not been denied by the appellant-State, rather in paragraph-6 of the reply, it is stated that in other four Villages except Village Keer, there was no sale transaction during the one year prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, the District Collector had approved the same rate for other four villages on the basis of Village Keer, meaning thereby the nature and potential of land of these villages, by the Land Acquisition Collector, was found to be identical. Therefore, District Collector also had determined the value of the land in other four Villages on the basis of value of land in Village Keer. Therefore, District Collector also had determined the value of the land in other four Villages on the basis of value of land in Village Keer. Not only this, in the evidence of Inder Singh (PW.1) filed by way of an affidavit, in paragraph-6, it is specifically claimed that potential of the acquired land in Village Keer is the same as that of the land acquired in Villages Nagrhi and Sari. This fact has not been disputed in the cross-examination of this witness nor this fact has been disputed in the statement of appellant-State’s witness Ajeet Kapoor (RW.1). 10. As noticed above, in Award (Ex.PW.1/B) pertaining to village Nagrhi and Award (Ex.PW.1/D) pertaining to village Sari, Land Acquisition Collector had determined the highest value of the land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha. As per Section 25 of the Act, Court cannot determine the value of the land lessor than the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Further, where purpose of land acquisition is common like construction of road, compensation is to be awarded on uniform rates by considering the entire land as a single unit irrespective of its classification. 11. The law awarding compensation at uniform rates when purpose of acquisition is common and acquired land is to be utilized in the same manner irrespective of its classification, is no longer res integra and it is well settled that in such a case, land owners-claimants would be entitled for compensation on uniform basis irrespective of nature, classification and category. [See: Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) By Legal Representative and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 469 , Himmat Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 ; Dadu Ram vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, (2016) 2 ILR 636 (HP); H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others, 2003 (3) Shim.L.C. 64 ; Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, (2005) 12 SCC 564; Executive Engineer and another vs. Dila Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1007; LAC and another vs. Bhoop Ram and others, 1997 (2) SLC 229; Smt. Gulai and etc. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 ; G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775. 12. vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 ; G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 775. 12. The Apex Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717 , has held that where the land under the acquisition in different Villages is identical and similar then the rate awarded for acquiring the land in adjacent Village, for the similar purpose can be a base for determining the same value of compensation to the adjoining village. 13. In the present case nature and potential of the land and purpose of the acquisition is the same more particularly acquisition is in pursuance to the common Notification. 14. It has come in the evidence that Village Keer is in between Villages Nagrhi and Sari and in evidence produced by the land owners it has come on record that the nature and potential of the land of these Villages is same to that of village Keer and for these two Village highest rate of compensation has been determined by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act and the settled position of law uniform rate is to be given. Reference Court has not committed any irregularity, illegality or perversity by awarding the same rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha to the land owners of Village Keer irrespective of its nature and classification. 15. In view of the above discussion, all these appeals are dismissed and the award passed by the District Judge (Forests), Shimla, is affirmed and the respondents/land owners are held entitled for compensation for the acquisition of their land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha alongwith all statutory benefits. Pending application(s), if any are also disposed of in aforesaid terms.