JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —In the instant appeal, appellantland owner has assailed dismissal of his reference petition preferred by him, for enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved and dis satisfied with award No. 5 announced on 22nd January, 2003, passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by Land Acquisition Collector, Kol Dam, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ''Collector'') wherein the rate of compensation on the basis of classification of land had been awarded as under: (i) Barani (Majrua) Rs. 4,69, 955/ per bigha (ii) Khadyater etc. Rs. 1,04, 416/ per bigha (Gairmajrua) 2. Section 25 of the Act provides that the Court cannot award the compensation lesser than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act. 3. It is well settled that at the time of determining market value of land for acquisition, the purpose for which the land is acquired is relevant and not nature and classification of land and where nature and classification of the land has no relevance for purpose of acquisition, the market value of the land is to be determined as a single unit irrespective of nature and classification of the land. In such a case, uniform rate to all kinds of land under acquisition as a single unit irrespective or their nature and classification is to be awarded. {See H.P. Housing Board versus Ram Lal , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 ; Union of India versus Harinder Pal Singh , (2005) 12 SCC 564; Gulabi versus State of H.P. , (1998) 1 ShimLC 41 ; and Executive Engineer and another versus Dilla Ram, 2008 2 LatestHLJ 1007 (HP) .} 4. Further, it is also settled that when the purpose of acquisition is common and no developmental activity is required to be carried out, compensation is to be awarded at uniform rate. {See Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs versus State of Gujarat , (2005) 4 SCC 789 ; Himmat Singh and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another , (2013) 16 SCC 392 ; and Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) By Legal Representatives and others versus State of Karnataka and another , (2015) 10 SCC 469 }. 5. It is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. 4,69, 955/ per bigha. 6. 5. It is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. 4,69, 955/ per bigha. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in RFA No. 41 of 2012, titled as NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam, Barmana, Bilaspur versus Ram Rakhi & another, arising out of the same award, i.e. award No. 5 of 2003, a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment, dated 11th January, 2017, has awarded rate of the land acquired at the highest rate awarded by the Collector. Further, that the same has been accepted by the parties and has attained finality. I am in agreement with the findings returned by the coordinate Bench in the said appeal. 7. While going through the judgment in Ram Rakhi''s case , it is noticed that date of award No. 5 of 2003 has been recorded as 15th January, 2003 whereas in present appeals, award No. 5 of 2003 has been referred by learned District Judge as dated 22nd January, 2003. Therefore, record of the said appeal, i.e. RFA No. 41 of 2012, was requisitioned from the Registry wherein record of learned District Judge is also available. From perusal of the said record, it is found that though, the Collector had proposed to announce award No. 5 on 15th January, 2003 subject to approval of the Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, however, the same was announced in Village Harnora in presence of the land owners on 22nd January, 2003. 8. On comparison of record of RFA No. 41 of 2012 and the record of the learned District Judge attached therewith with that of the present appeals, it is clear that present appeal, pertaining to the land of the same village, i.e. Village Harnora, is also arising out of the common award No. 5, dated 22nd January, 2003, passed by the Collector whereby entire land was acquired for one and the same public purpose, i.e. construction of Kol Dam. It is also undisputed that time of acquisition as well as location of the land in present case is not only proximate but identical with case decided in RFA No. 41 of 2012 and, therefore, present appeal is squarely covered by judgment in RFA No. 41 of 2012. 9. It is also undisputed that time of acquisition as well as location of the land in present case is not only proximate but identical with case decided in RFA No. 41 of 2012 and, therefore, present appeal is squarely covered by judgment in RFA No. 41 of 2012. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, judgment, dated 11th January, 2017, passed in RFA No. 41 of 2012, titled as NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam, Barmana, Bilaspur versus Ram Rakhi & another, is mutatis mutandis applicable in present appeal and rate of acquired land, as determined in the said case is also applicable to the appellantland owner in the present appeal. Therefore, appellantland owner is held entitled to compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,69, 955/ per bigha alongwith all consequential statutory benefits including interest and solatium under the Act. 10. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. Respondents are directed to calculate the amount and deposit the same in the Registry of this Court within three months from today.