JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Since all these appeals arise out of the same award, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience and to maintain clarity, facts of RFA No. 213 of 2009 titled as ''Sunka Ram versus Land Acquisition Collector and others'' are being referred to. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''Act'') was issued by State of Himachal Pradesh on 17.10.2000 vide which land comprised in Khewat No.7, Khasra No.95, measuring 7-15 bighas at Village Devla Chhamb, Hadbast No.117, Tehsil Sadar, Districte Bilaspur, H.P., was sought to be acquired for construction of ''Kol Dam Hydro Project'' for public purpose. After completion of the procedural formalities, the Collector vide Award No.4 of 2002 dated 30.09.2002 allowed the same by awarding a sum of Rs.4, 68, 496.11/- per bigha for ''Barani'' (Majrua) and Rs.1, 04, 117.44/- per bigha for Khadeytar (Gair Majrua) . 4. The petitioners-claimants being aggrieved and dis -satisfied with the determination of the market value filed references for enhancement of the awarded amount by invoking Section 18 of the Act. The same were forwarded to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. These references, 10 in number, came to be registered. 5. The grievance as put forth before the Court by the petitionersclaimants is that the market value of the acquired land determined by the Collector was grossly inadequate, as according to them, taking into consideration the proximity of the acquired land from the National Highway as also from the cement plant of ACC at Barmana and Dehar Power House, its market value should not have been assessed less than Rs.10, 00, 000/- per bigha. The compensation was sought to be enhanced on the following grounds:- "(a) That the learned Collector did not conduct the enquiry for assessing the market value as envisaged under the Act. The market value was assessed in a slip shod manner and no justice was done with the petitioners. (b) That the Collector did not take into consideration the objections submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged that during the enquiry as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, no opportunity at all was given to the petitioner to lead any evidence for assessing the market value. (b) That the Collector did not take into consideration the objections submitted by the petitioner. It is alleged that during the enquiry as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, no opportunity at all was given to the petitioner to lead any evidence for assessing the market value. The learned Collector has not only violated the basic principles of Land Acquisition Act but also rules of natural justice. (c) That the Land Acquisition Collector did not consider the following factors while assessing the market value of the land:- (i) That this land is immediately adjoining Mandi District and Slapper Colony and Hydel Project known as Dehar Power House which is also very near to it. (ii) That near to it A.C.C. Factory, Barmana is also situated, which is a very important business concern. Due to this the value has also multiplied many fold. (iii) That N.H.-21 passes near to this land and the same is very useful for any business. (iv) That all modern facilities like hospitals, schools, college, roads etc. are available nearby which has added high in its value. (v) That due to Dehar Power House and A.C.C. Barmana, it has become tourist place due to its geographical situation, which has multiplied its value. (vi) That due to hilly terrain a land is scares and demand is very high even for one Bishwa one has to pay lacs of rupees and due to high value no body can dare to purchase land in Bighas. (vii) That this land is known for sugarcane due to its higher fertility and this land is also known for turmeric and ginger which multiply its value. (viii) That there is plenty of limestone, which is very important for industries which also multiply its value. (ix) That the acquired land is very important for cultivation of Khair trees, which is very valuable and costly for its herbal importance i.e. Katha. Its cultivation gives immediate property to the land owners and this cultivation is repeated after 10 years which gives incomes to the tune of Rs.2 crores. On this account compensation for 10 decades may be given. Its cultivation gives immediate property to the land owners and this cultivation is repeated after 10 years which gives incomes to the tune of Rs.2 crores. On this account compensation for 10 decades may be given. (d) That though the average value of land in the adjoining village Harnora is Rs.15 lacs per Bighas but to determine the value of land through sale deed is not good criteria because it is a matter of common knowledge that Indian people with a view to save stamp duty do register the land at a minimum level and in this way they save thousands of rupees. So to calculate the same, the registered deeds may not be accepted on its face value but the assessment be made with open eyes and a common sense which Collector at this stage ought to apply. (e) That the land in question has not been properly measured as per land record manual." 6. The petition was resisted and contested by the respondents before the Court below on the ground that reasonable and just compensation has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, who after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including inquiries, objections and comparable sale transactions had passed the award. It was rather contended that the award was on the higher side and there is no positive effect of distance of NH-21, ACC cement plant at Barmana and the Dehar Power House on the acquired land and the acquired land lacked modern facilities like hospital, schools, college and roads etc. It was denied that the land was being used for growing ginger and turmeric and having lime stone which in turn was fit for growing ''khair trees''. It was also denied that the market value of the land in the area and adjoining area of Village Harnora was fetching a value of Rs.15, 00, 000/- per bigha. It was further submitted that there was no source of irrigation and, therefore, the question of growing vegetables etc. on the land did not arise. Rejoinder was filed. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned reference Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether in-adequate compensation has been paid to the petitioners and as such the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation, as alleged? ..OPP. 2. Relief." 8. The parties were put to trial. 9. on the land did not arise. Rejoinder was filed. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned reference Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether in-adequate compensation has been paid to the petitioners and as such the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of the compensation, as alleged? ..OPP. 2. Relief." 8. The parties were put to trial. 9. The petitioners-claimants in order to substantiate their claim led both oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners-claimants examined PW-1 Sunka Ram, PW-2 Uma Gupta, PW-3 Prakash Chand and PW-4 Sita Ram and proved on record sale deeds Ex.PW-1/A, Ex. PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C and subsequently tendered sale deeds exhibits PA, PB and PC in evidence. 10. On the other hand, respondent No.3, NTPC, Barmana, the beneficiary, examined RW-1 Jagan Nath and RW-2 Rajender Singh and tendered in evidence exhibits RA to RE along with copy of award dated 31.05.2008 Ex.RF and tripartite agreement Ex.RG. 11. The learned reference Court on appreciation of evidence comprising of oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that no case for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land was made out. Consequently, the award passed by the Collector was affirmed and all the references were dismissed giving rise to filing of the instant appeals. 12. The legality and validity of the award has been questioned on the ground inter alia that the same is perverse and is based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as not only oral and documentary evidence has been ignored, but even the legal position has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Court below. The learned Court below has erred in not taking into consideration the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 as well as sale deeds exhibits PA to PC and exhibits PW-1/A, PW-1/B and PW-1/C which clearly prove that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.15, 00, 000/- per bigha. 13. Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri B.R.Thakur, for the appellant(s) while addressing oral arguments has reiterated the grounds as taken in the appeals filed before this Court. While, on the other hand, Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the beneficiary, would defend the award by urging that the same is just and reasonable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence. 14. While, on the other hand, Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the beneficiary, would defend the award by urging that the same is just and reasonable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence. 14. At the outset, it may be observed that in the sale exemplars relied upon by both the parties, the vendors and vendees have not been examined, but, nonetheless, the same can always be well looked into when there is no objection from the other side in view of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. versus Purya and others , (2004) 8 SCC 270 , Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and another versus Madhubai Gobarbhai and another , (2009) 15 SCC 125 , and Himmat Singh and others versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another , (2013) 16 SCC 392 . 15. Now, adverting to the sale deeds of the respective parties:- Sr.No. Nature Details 1. Ex. PA Sale deed dated 04.02.2002 executed by Durga in favour of Sita Ram at Village Nehar of 1 bigha 1 biswa for Rs.80, 000/- 2. Ex. PB Sale deed dated 20.02.2003 executed by Durga in favour of Nand Lal at Village Nehar vid e which he sold 3 biswa for Rs.50, 000/- 3. Ex.PC Sale deed dated 18.08.2013 executed by Lala in favour of Government of Himachal Pradesh at village Harnora whereby 12 biswas were sold for Rs.3, 90, 000/- i.e. Rs.6, 50, 000/- per bigha as private Negotiation on account of future acquisition of land` 4. Ex.PW1/A Sale deed dated 07.04.2000 executed by Chamaru in favour of Birender at village Harnora whereby he sold four biswas for Rs.47, 500/- 5. Ex.PW1/B Sale deed dated 26.06.2000 executed by Santa in favour of Rajesh Kumar at village Harnora whereby 2 biswas were sold for Rs.80, 000/- 6. Ex.PW1/C Sale deed dated 20.04.2000 executed by Chamaru in favour of Prem Lal at village Harnora whereby 2biswas were sold for Rs.47, 500/- 7. Ex.RA Affidavit and statement of Kirpal Singh Dated 23.02.2008. 8. Ex.RB Affidavit and statement of Kala dated 23.02.2008. 9. Ex.RC Affidavit and statement of Dandu dated 23.02.2008 10. Ex.RA Sale deed dated 30.09.1997 executed by Kala in favour of Rattan Lal at village Devla Chhamb whereby 3 biswas were sold for Rs.5, 000/- 11. Ex.RA Affidavit and statement of Kirpal Singh Dated 23.02.2008. 8. Ex.RB Affidavit and statement of Kala dated 23.02.2008. 9. Ex.RC Affidavit and statement of Dandu dated 23.02.2008 10. Ex.RA Sale deed dated 30.09.1997 executed by Kala in favour of Rattan Lal at village Devla Chhamb whereby 3 biswas were sold for Rs.5, 000/- 11. Ex.RB Sale deed dated 30.05.2000 executed by Rupa Devi in favour of Ashwani Kumar at village Harnora whereby 4 biswas were sold for Rs.15, 000/- 12. Ex.RC Sale deed dated 29.05.1999 executed by Kirpal Singh in favour of Bhagat Ram and Lekh Ram at village Harnora whereby 1 biswa of land was sold for Rs.5, 000/- 13. Ex.RD Sale deed dated 29.05.2000 executed by Santu in favour of Ranjeet Singh at village Kasol whereby 2 biswas were sold for Rs.13, 500/- 14. Ex.RE Sale deed dated 06.04.2000 executed by Dandu in favour of Dalel Singh and Nikku Ram at village Kasol whereby 8 biswas were sold for Rs.50, 000/- 15. Ex.RF Copy of award dated 31.05.2008 in Ref Petition No. 29 of 2003 by DJ, Bilaspur Gurditta versus LAC and other cases: Reference dismissed. 16. Ex.RG Tripartite Agreement 16. Adverting to the evidence, it would be noticed that in the deposition of PW-3, it has specifically come that village Nehar is located at a distance of one kilometre from NH-21 and mauza Devla Chhamb is located one kilometre beyond it. He has further deposed that village Harnora is situated at a distance of one kilometre from Devla Chhamb and, therefore, in such circumstances, it would not be safe for this Court to place reliance on any of the sale exemplars. Likewise, even the sale exemplars relied upon by the beneficiary vide Ex.RA to RE cannot be relied upon as these exemplars, save and except Ex.RA, relates to the lands that were sold either in village Harnora or at village Kasol and only one sale deed relating to the village in question i.e. Devla Chhamb has been produced vide Ex.RA, but even this sale deed was executed much earlier to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, it would not be safe for this Court to place much reliance on this sale deed. 17. 17. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant(s) would vehemently argue that compensation should be enhanced after taking into consideration the sale deed dated 18.08.2003 executed by Lala in favour of Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Ex. PC whereby an area of 12 biswas was sold for Rs.3, 90, 000/- and at the rate of Rs.6, 50, 000/- per bigha. But, I am unable to accept this contention because admittedly this sale deed was executed after notification under Section 4 of the Act had already been issued but even otherwise this sale deed cannot reflect true and correct price of the land as it was after private negotiation and taking into account the future acquisition of the land that the same was executed. 18. At this stage, for the purpose of finding out the appropriate market value of the land, three major aspects are required to be considered. On would be by way of sale instances of comparable land, another the capitalized valuation based on utility method and third is compensation awarded in other land cases of the land located in the same village or of the nearby area. 19. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda and another versus Vasudev Chandrashankar and another , (1997) 11 SCC 218 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the judgments and awards of Courts are the best piece of evidence which can safely be relied upon by the Courts while determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. 20. It is not in dispute that earlier to this reference petition, the Collector vide his award No.3 of 2002 had decided a batch of eight petitions, reference for enhancement whereof like in the instant case, was dismissed by the reference Court and was subject matter of RFA No.246 of 2008 titled as ''Dadu Ram versus Land Acquisition Collector and others'' wherein six appeals were decided by a common judgment and the claimants therein were awarded an uniform rate of Rs.4, 68, 497.00/- at flat rate, irrespective of its nature, on the basis of the judgment(s) of this Court whereby it was held that where purpose for which the land has been acquired is the same, then classification of the acquired land completely loses significance and the compensation has to be awarded at a uniform rate. Instead of multiplying the authorities on the subject, I would only refer to the relevant portion of the judgment passed in Dadu Ram''s case wherein it was held as under:- "18. Now, if coming to the 2nd point, it is seen that learned reference Court has categorized the land in two categories i.e. ''Majrua'' and ''Gair Majrua'', of course on the request of the petitioners, as is apparent from the perusal of award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. In view of the evidence available on record, prior to inception of Kol Dam Project, no developmental activities had taken place there by that time. Meaning thereby that the entire area was in the process of being developed. The land was acquired for the construction of project. Therefore, taking into consideration, the purpose for which the land was acquired, the same should not have been classified ''Majrua'' or ''Gair Majrua'' for the reason that the land was acquired for the construction of project and as such, the classification of the acquired land completely looses significance. I am drawing support in this regard from the judgment of this Court in Executive Engineer and another v. Dila Ram, 2008 LatestHLJ 1007 (HP) , the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: "12. The Collector has awarded compensation of the acquired land as per classification of the land. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as per classification. One of the questions in the above appeals is whether awarding of compensation as per classification of the land is proper or not. The purpose of the acquisition in the present case is for construction of road and for that purpose classification completely looses significance. The acquired land is to be used/developed as a single unit for the construction of road. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. In H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal and others , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , the acquisition was made for construction of housing board colony and compensation was assessed as per classification by the Collector. In the High Court the persons interested limited their claim for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 400/- per square meter irrespective of classification. On those facts, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when the land is being developed for constructing housing colony, the classification completely looses significance and awarded compensation on the flat rate of Rs.200/- per square meter for the entire land irrespective of classification or nearness to the road. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others , (2005) 12 SCC 564, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has approved the view of the High Court assessing the market value of the lands under acquisition in the five villages at uniform rate of Rs. 40, 000/- per acre, irrespective of their nature or quality and whether the same was situated nearer to the road or at some distance therefrom. In the present case also, the acquired land is to be used/developed for the construction of the road as a single unit and, therefore, classification of the land looses significance. In these circumstances, the persons interested are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per biswa of Rs. 1,20, 000/- per bigha of the acquired land irrespective of classification, which is more than the market value assessed by learned District Judge." 21. The point in issue, therefore, is squarely covered by the judgment supra. Learned reference Court, therefore, should have determined the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its categorization. It is seen that the Court below has assessed the market value of the land categorized as ''Majrua'' @ Rs.4, 68, 497.00/- and ''Gair Majrua'' @ Rs.1, 04, 117.44/-. In view of the above, this Court determines the market value of the acquired land at flat rates, irrespective of its nature, as Rs.4, 68, 497.00/- 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the market value of the land is assessed at Rs.4, 68, 497.00/-. The impugned award is ordered to be modified accordingly. The amount of compensation be now calculated along with all statutory benefits payable thereon accordingly and deposited in the Registry of this Court within three months from today. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the market value of the land is assessed at Rs.4, 68, 497.00/-. The impugned award is ordered to be modified accordingly. The amount of compensation be now calculated along with all statutory benefits payable thereon accordingly and deposited in the Registry of this Court within three months from today. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of. No orders so as to costs. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the files of connected matters.