JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. In the instant appeal, appellants-land owners have assailed dismissal of their reference petition preferred by them, 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. (Gairmajrua) Rs. 1,04,416/- per bigha 2. Another grievance of the appellants-land owners, in this appeal, is that compensation awarded for the houses/structures, existing on the acquired land, is inadequate. 3. 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. 4. 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 v. Ram Lal, 2003 (3) Shim. LC (64); Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, 2005 (12) SCC 564; Gulabi v. State of H.P., 1998 (1) Shim.LC 41 ; and Executive Engineer and another v. Dilla Ram, Latest HLJ (2008) 2 HP 1007.. 5. 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 v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 ; Himmat Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 ; and Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) By Legal Representatives and others v. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 .} 6. It is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. It is undisputed that highest rate awarded by the Collector was Rs. 4,69,955/- per bigha. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in RFA No. 41 of 2012, titled as NTPC Ltd., Kol Dam, Barmana, Bilaspur v. Ram Rakhi & another, arising out of the same award, i.e. award No. 5 of 2003, a co-ordinate 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. 8. While going through the judgment in Ram Rakhi's case (supra), 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. 9. 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 appeal, 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. 10. 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. 10. 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 v. Ram Rakhi & another, is mutatis mutandis applicable in present appeal with regard to market value of the land under acquisition and rate of acquired land, as determined in the said case is also applicable to appellants-land owners in the present appeal. Therefore, appellants-land owners are 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. First grievance of the appellants is answered accordingly. 11. Now, I advert to the second contention of the appellants-land owners. Appellants-land owners have examined PW2 Anoop Kumar, who is a registered Architect in Town and Country Planning Department since 2001. He has proved valuation report Ex. PW2/A prepared by him with regard to houses of Roop Lal and Chota Ram (appellants) on khasra Nos. 77min, 77, 83min, 28min, 109min & 109min and site plan of these houses Ex. PW2/B1 to PW2/B6. According to his valuation, value of houses of appellants-land owners comes to Rs. 15,23,001/-. 12. To rebut the evidence of appellants-land owners, respondent-State has examined RW4 Amit Kumar Modgil, Junior Engineer posted in the Collector's office since May, 2001. He has proved the abstract of cost estimates, Ex. RW4/A to RW4/F, of houses of appellants-land owners bearing Numbers 59, 82a, 89/1, 218 and 221 situated on khasra Nos. 77min, 77, 83min, 28min, 109min & 109min. According to his valuation report, value of houses concerned comes to Rs. 9,35,703/-. 13. Comparative chart of valuation of houses by PW2 Anoop Kumar and RW4 Amit Kumar Modgil is as under: Sr. No. Khasra No. Valuation by PW-2 Valuation by RW-4 1. 77-min Rs. 77,672/- Rs. 43,037/- 2. 77 Rs. 71,639/- Rs. 1,49,951/- 3. 83-min Rs. 2,85,458/- Rs. 3,76,137/- 4. 28-min Rs. 3,61,017/- Rs. 2,51,026/- 5. 109-min Rs. 32,385/- Rs. 10,422/- 6. 109-min Rs. 6,94,830/- Rs. 1,05,130/- Total: Rs. 15,23,001/- Rs. 9,35,703/- 14. No. Khasra No. Valuation by PW-2 Valuation by RW-4 1. 77-min Rs. 77,672/- Rs. 43,037/- 2. 77 Rs. 71,639/- Rs. 1,49,951/- 3. 83-min Rs. 2,85,458/- Rs. 3,76,137/- 4. 28-min Rs. 3,61,017/- Rs. 2,51,026/- 5. 109-min Rs. 32,385/- Rs. 10,422/- 6. 109-min Rs. 6,94,830/- Rs. 1,05,130/- Total: Rs. 15,23,001/- Rs. 9,35,703/- 14. PW2 as well as RW4, though claimed that they had prepared rough notes at the time of evaluating the houses/structures of appellants-land owners, however, have not produced the same in the Court at the time of leading evidence. 15. PW2 had prepared the valuation report in presence of the appellants-land owners but none else whereas RW4 had prepared the valuation report with the collective effort of Engineer Hoshiar Singh and Krishan Singh by applying Schedule Rate of 1999. In cross-examination, RW4 has admitted that he had not prepared separate report with regard to the difference of the construction cost between the years 1999-2003. Though, he has stated that 12% additional amount was added in the valuation report, but, he has admitted that in this regard, there is no separate report. He has also admitted that he had not enquired about the rate of construction material in the year 1999 and has also not produced any record in his evidence. He has admitted that before acquisition of land, entire construction material had to be carried from Sallaper bridge to the village and he has not prepared valuation report with regard to expenditure occurred for carriage of construction material. 16. The valuation report, Ex. PW2/A, prepared by PW2 is dated 3rd March, 2003 and as per his report, he had determined the current fair market value of the houses. It has further been stated in the said report that the rate had been arrived after doing local inquiries to assess the current prices for these type of properties and keeping in view the prevailing market trends and these market rates were based upon the rates received from the HPSR (Himachal Pradesh Schedule of Rates). In cross-examination of PW2, date of valuation, its purpose, method and parameters adopted for valuation have not been disputed. 17. Abstract of cost estimate of houses of appellants-land owners, Ex. In cross-examination of PW2, date of valuation, its purpose, method and parameters adopted for valuation have not been disputed. 17. Abstract of cost estimate of houses of appellants-land owners, Ex. RW4/A to RW4/F, prepared by RW4, does not bear any date of preparation of these cost estimates either in the title of these cost estimates or below the signatures of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer, who prepared these estimates. Details of measurements placed on record in support of this abstract of cost estimates bear signature of Junior Engineer only. Though, stamp of Assistant Engineer was also put on these estimates, but he has not signed the details of measurements. Nowhere in the details of measurements or in the abstract of cost estimate, parameters norms and/or Schedule adopted for calculating the value of houses/structures has been stated. Though, in cross-examination, RW4 has claimed that Schedule of 1999 was adopted for valuation and 12% additional amount was added in the valuation, however, the same does not find mention in the documents proved by him on record. 18. On the basis of quality of evidence on record, the abstract of cost produced by the respondents cannot be considered as reliable document to determine the actual market value of structures/houses existing on the acquired land of appellants-land owners. On the other hand, there is a specific date of preparation of the valuation report with clear mention of method adopted for valuation of the property in Ex. PW2/A. 19. Therefore, the report produced by the appellants-land owners can be relied upon for determining the market value of houses/structures of the appellants-land owners. From the comparative chart, there is a difference of Rs. 5,87,298/-. 20. Viewed thus, for aforesaid discussion, appellants-land owners, in addition to compensation awarded by the Collector for their houses/structures existing on acquired land, are also held entitled to Rs. 5,87,298/- in equal shares. Second grievance of the appellants is answered accordingly. 21. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. 22. Respondents are directed to calculate the amount and deposit the same in the Registry of this Court within three months from today.