JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the award, pronounced by the learned reference Court, upon, Land reference petition No. 28/4 of 2011, whereunder compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs. 36000/- per biswa stood assessed, qua the acquired land, and also the statutory benefits were also bestowed thereon. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with much vigor before this Court (i) that the gross enhancement made by the learned reference Court, vis-à-vis, the market value of the acquired land, and vis-à-vis, contra distinct categories of land, brought to acquisition, rather being borne in a sum of Rs. 36,000/- per biswa, hence being unmeritworthy, and rather warranting interference. However, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted by this Court, (ii) as the learned reference Court, in making the afore computation of market value, of, the acquired land, has placed reliance upon Ext. PW1/A, (iii) exhibit whereof is an award made, vis-à-vis, land acquired in the village, whereat, the extantly acquired land(s) also stand located. A close reading of Ext. PW1/A rendered, upon, the Land reference petition 50 of 2001, unfolds qua, vis-à-vis, the lands situated in a village similar to the land, whereat the extant land(s) stand located, and, in respect of bringing, to, acquisition whereof, a, notification hence stood issued in the year 1996, rather market value, of, the lands borne therein, being computed in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per biswa. Any reliance placed thereon, by the learned reference Court, in, computing the market value, vis-à-vis the extantly acquired lands, would be both un-meritworthy and untenable. (iv) Upon hence clear forthright evidence, rather making up-surging(s) qua the lands, in respect whereof Ext. PW1/A stood pronounced, not standing located in proximity to the extantly acquired land, b) hence the potentiality of the land, hence therethrough acquired being contra-distinct, vis-à-vis, the extantly acquired land, (iv) however, the afore evidence is grossly amiss hereat. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot make, the afore contention before this Court, for hence stripping the tenacity and probative vigor, of, Ext. PW1/A, vis-à-vis, the relevant factum. 3. Further more, apparently, under Ext. Consequently, the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot make, the afore contention before this Court, for hence stripping the tenacity and probative vigor, of, Ext. PW1/A, vis-à-vis, the relevant factum. 3. Further more, apparently, under Ext. PW1/A the market value of the acquired lands, was assessed @ 20,000/- per biswa, (i) however, with the afore lands being evidently acquired, under, a notification issued in the year 1996, and, whereas vis-à-vis the extantly acquired land, the apt notification standing issued hence 8 years subsequent thereto, (ii) thereupon with the apt accretion(s) and escalation(s), in, the market value, of, the extantly acquired lands, obviously making apt eruptions, and, upsurging(s), rather, since the year 1996, upto, 2004, (iii) hence meteing(s) of apt increase(s) @ 10% per annum, commencing from the year 1996 upto 2004, by the learned reference Court, in the latter gauging the market value, of, the extantly acquired land, is, both merit-worthy, and, legally sound, given its bearing consonance, with, the verdict pronounced, in a case reported in HLJ 2007 594, titled as “Vidya Prakash Singh Negi and others Vs. State of H.P. and others”, relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter : “In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the land which is the subject mater of the present appeals has lesser potential compared to the land situated in Mauza Patti Rihana, which was the subject matter of the appeal decided by this Court on 2.12.1991. The No. and particulars of that appeal are RFA No. 1 of 1988, Shimla Development Authority, Shimla vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and several connected matters. Now, if the lands situated the in the two villages have the same potential or are similarly situated, the learned Additional District Judge, ought to have given an increase in the market value determined by this Court, vide judgment dated 2.12.1991, in respect of the land situated in village Patti Rihana, because there had been a lag of eight years between the issuance of the notification for the acquisition of land, which was the subject matter of appeals decided by this Court vide judgment dated 2.12.1991, and the land which is the subject matter of the present appeals. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the decade of eighties, prices of land high rocketed. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the decade of eighties, prices of land high rocketed. The prices can legitimately be presumed to have gone up at least at the rate of 10% per annum, during the aforesaid period of eight years. Therefore, 80% increase was received to be given in the market value assessed by this Court, vide judgment dated 2.12.1991, in respect of land of Patti Rihana, which was notified for acquisition in the year 1980, to arrive at the correct figure of market value of the land prevailing in the year 1988. If such an increase is given, the market value of the land comes to Rs. 2,20,500/-” 4. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended (i) that given the contra-distinctivity, in, classification(s) of the acquired lands, hence a compatible contra-distinctivity, vis-à-vis, market value(s) thereof, rather being enjoined to be assessed by the learned reference Court, as done, by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, (ii) whereas rather uniform rate of compensation being assessed, under, the impugned award, vis-à-vis, contra-distinct classification(s), of, the land(s), as, brought to acquisition, hence, rendering the impugned award, to, rather stand ingrained with an inherent fallacy. However, with a the catena of verdict(s), rather making a clear pronouncement, qua, any acquisition(s), of, contra-distinct category(s) of land, for, hence construction of road, (iii) thereupon, the apt contra-distinct classification(s), being eclipsed, and, also being rendered redundant, upon, user of the acquired land(s), for the apt common public purpose, (iv) and also, hence the assessment, of, a uniform rate of compensation, vis-à-vis, the contra-distinct categories of acquired land(s), being both tenable and merit worthy. Bearing in mind, the, afore expostulation of land, the assessment of a uniform rate, of compensation, vis-à-vis, contra-distinct categories of land(s), as brought to acquisition, for, construction of road, is in tandem therewith, and, obviously does not warrant any interference. 5. At this stage, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended with much vigor, that (i) deductions towards apt developmental costs, were, enjoined, to be meted, upon, the afore determined market value, of, the extantly acquired land. However, the afore submission falters, (ii) given the reliance, as placed by him, upon, case titled as “Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana” (2003) SCC 354, and, upon case titled as “H.P. Housing Board Vs. However, the afore submission falters, (ii) given the reliance, as placed by him, upon, case titled as “Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana” (2003) SCC 354, and, upon case titled as “H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi” (2004) 2 SCC 184 , whereunder deductions were meted, from, the market value of the acquired lands, for, hence setting off the exorbitant costs, incurred vis-à-vis, developmental charges/expenses, (iii) rather being solitarily applicable, vis-à-vis, upon acquisitions being made for pecuniary benefits, and, when, contrarily hereat the acquisition is not made, for pecuniary benefits, and, rather is made towards rendition of gratuitous public service, thereupon hence meteing of deductions, towards, any developmental charges/expenses is neither appropriate nor apt. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, the same is dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.