JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The claimants/appellants herein, standing aggrieved, by the award pronounced by the learned Reference Court, upon, Land Reference No. 14-S/4 of 2011, hence, motioned this Court, through the instant appeal, cast under the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The claimants, had, in the apposite reference petition transmitted to the learned Reference Court, by the Collector concerned, hence, projected qua theirs being entitled to compensation borne in a sum of Rs.15,000/- per sq. meter. The afore projection, stood aptly declined, by the learned Reference Court, given (a) no sale exemplar bearing proximity in location, vis-a-vis, the lands brought to acquisition, being adduced into evidence, (b) nor also any apposite sale exemplar, being tendered into evidence, for, bearing out the further trite principle(s) qua there existing proximity inter se execution thereof, and, the issuance of the notification, whereunder the claimants' land, stood, brought to acquisition. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, (i) that the Collector concerned was enjoined to revere, the, apposite one year average market value, of, lands appertaining, to, the Halqua concerned, wherewithin, the acquired lands were located. He contends that the one year average market value, of, lands appertaining, vis-a-vis, the halqua concerned, and, as, determined by the District Collector, Shimla, hence, to stand comprised, in a sum of Rs.5,495.39 per square meter, rather comprised the just, reasonable, and, equitable parameter, for, on anvil thereof, making hence assessment, of, fair compensation, vis-a-vis, the acquired land. 4. The one year average market value, as drawn by the District Collector, Shimla, bears out, the afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellant However, the Collector concerned, had discarded the afore one year average market value of land, as determined by the District Collector, Shimla, on the ground (a) qua the sale considerations, appertaining, vis-a-vis, the, apposite sale exemplars, as, borne in the mind by him, in his making the afore computation rather also carrying therein, the, value of structures existing, upon, the relevant lands; (b) thereupon, the Collector concerned, after, deducting from the sale consideration, the value, of, structures existing, on the lands qua wherewith sale deeds stood executed, thereafter proceeded to assess compensation, vis-a-vis, the acquired lands, borne in a sum of Rs.4,310/- per square meter. The afore method adopted by the Collector concerned, would carry immense formidability, upon, there existing on record (a) the apt valuation reports prepared by the valuers concerned, vis-a-vis, the apposite sale exemplars, (b) with, clear depictions therein, that, the value of the structure existing upon the land, qua wherewith the sale deeds stood executed, being prepared both with respect to the structures as well as qua the lands, whereon, the structures existed, (c) and, therefrom it would be further decipherable qua hence obviously, the, value of the structure being or being not borne, in mind by the valuer concerned, for, hence, his obviously drawing, the, valuation reports qua therewith. The aforesaid evidence is abysmally lacking, thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, the Collector concerned, has arbitrarily proceeded (d) to conclude that the value of the structures existing on the lands qua wherewith the apposite sale exemplar stood executed, being solitarily borne in mind, by the valuers concerned, and, the lands whereon they existed, being discarded, (e) and, thereupon, the learned Collector concerned, has, further proceeded, to, arbitrarily, discard the value of the land whereon, the structures existed, (f) whereas, the value of the structure as well as of the lands, whereon they existed, were both required to be hence borne in mind, by the valuers concerned, in his/their making values thereof. The clinching effect thereof, (g) is that, it was grossly inappropriate, for the Collector concerned, to proceed to segregate, the apt components, of, the structures existing on the lands, in respect whereof, the apposite sale exemplars stood executed, from, the apposite lands, whereon, they existed, (h) AND, thereupon, it appears that in consonance therewith rather the District Collector Shimla, has, apparently aptly computed the one year average value of the land, to stand borne, in a sum of Rs.5,495.30 per square meter. 5. 5. Be that as it may, even if assumingly, the afore conclusion, may not be well rested, nonetheless, all the apposite sale exemplars, on anvil whereof, the District Collector, Shimla, hence, computed the one year average market value, of, land(s), existing in the halqua concerned, to be borne in a sum of Rs.5,495.39 per square meter, (I) when evidently appertain to the month of May, of, the year 2006, (ii) whereas, the lands of the claimants, were brought to acquisition in July, 2007, hence, after more than a year elapsing, since, the execution of the aforesaid sale exemplars. Consequently, the aforesaid elapse of time, hence, since the execution of the apposite sale exemplars, and, the issuance of the statutory notification, for bringing to acquisition, the lands of the claimants, obviously entailed some per centum of hikes being meted towards escalation, in costs or prices of lands, existing in the halqua concerned, from, Rs.4,310/- per square meter, (iii) and, the afore per centum of escalation, does also obviously, support the computation, of, one year average market value, drawn by the District Collector, Shimla, to hence stand borne in a sum of Rs.5,495.39 sq. meter. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed, and, the market value of the acquired land, is, assessed at Rs.5,495/- per square meter, irrespective of the kind, and, nature of the land, at the time of notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, and, on the aforesaid adjudged market value of the land, the appellants/landowners are also held entitled, to all the statutory benefits. Consequently, the impugned award is modified to the above extent only. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.