JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Challenge in these appeals/Cross-objections is laid to the common award dated 30.04.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in L.A.C. Petition No.91 of 2008, titled as Om Prakash & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) Una, H.P., alongwith other reference petitions. 2. The Collector Land Acquisition (Railways) , Una, vide award No.22, dated 02.02.2002, determined the market value of the acquired land ranging from Rs.2814/- to Rs.28, 140/- per kanal, depending upon the category and classification. The Collector Land Acquisition, depending upon the location of the land, by enhancing the market value, re-determined the market value ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per square meter (1 kanal= 384 sq.meters) . As such, enhancement is varying from Rs.500/- x Rs.384/- = Rs.1, 92, 000/- to Rs.700/- x Rs.384 = Rs.2, 68, 800/-. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute: (a) The land is situate in village Ghandawal, Tehsil and District Una; Proceedings for acquisition of the land commenced with the publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 01.12.2000; Collector Land Acquisition passed its award under Section 11 of the Act on 02.02.2002; the total extent of land involved is 09-77-24 hectares (97724 sq. meters 384 sq. meters = 255 kanal approximately) ; and the entire land stands fully utilized for the purpose of laying of NangalTalwara Railway Line. 4. It is a settled principle of law that land reference petitions are to be treated and adjudicated as plaints and the onus to prove the market value is upon the claimants and not the beneficiary. 5. In the instant appeals, claimants filed claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.10, 00, 000/- per kanal. The basis for the same being the testimony of Prem Chand (PW.1) and that of an expert Ganesh Chand (PW.2) . Also exemplar award dated 31.03.2011 (Ex.P-3) , passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in L.A.C. Petition No.1/03 RBT 44/05/03, titled as Rajinder Singh & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) , Una, H.P. & others and award dated 25.06.2011 (Ex.P-5) , passed by District Judge, Una, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No.39 of 2009, titled as Sukh Ram vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) , Una, District Una, H.P. & others. 6. 6. In rebuttal, the beneficiary has proved through Lal Chand (RW.1) exemplar award No.22, dated 02.02.2002 and sale deeds (Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3) . 7. The exemplar sale deeds, so placed on record by the beneficiary, were merely tendered in evidence, without any witness stepping into the witness box, establishing contents thereof or similarity of the exemplar land with that of the land, subject matter in issue. As such, said documents were correctly discarded by the Court below. 8. Insofar as exemplar award (Ex.RW.1/A) is concerned, this in fact, is the award passed by the Collector by acquiring the land in question. 9. Now coming to the evidence led by the claimants, one finds that the cases were consolidated and common evidence was led. 10. Prem Chand aged 62 years has deposed that the land in question is just abutting Una-Dharamshala super highway, which connects to the bordering States (Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir) . He has elaborated the potential of the land, which could be put to use be it for commercial, residential or industrial use. Also the area in question, stands fully developed, for Una township is in close proximity and vicinity. In fact, adjoining to the land in question, there are schools, hotels, markets, offices of commercial establishments such as Cooperative Society and Department of Irrigation and Public Health etc. Unrebuttedly/ uncontrovertedly, he has clarified that village Ghandawal, where the land in issue is situate, is having great potential of being put to use for all purposes. Also in support, he has placed and proved on record exemplar award, dated 31.03.2011 (Ex.P-3) , passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in L.A.C. Petition No.1/03 RBT 44/05/03, titled as Rajinder Singh & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) , Una, H.P. & others. 11. Mr.Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel, points out that these awards cannot be considered, more so, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court vide order dated 13.09.2017, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.13132-13141 of 2017, titled as Manoj Kumar etc. etc. vs. State of Haryana and Others etc. etc. Well, in the said decision, the Court has simply reiterated the earlier position with regard to earlier position, explaining as to how the exemplar awards/sale deeds/other evidence is to be construed while deciding reference petitions or re-determining the market value of the acquired land. 12. etc. vs. State of Haryana and Others etc. etc. Well, in the said decision, the Court has simply reiterated the earlier position with regard to earlier position, explaining as to how the exemplar awards/sale deeds/other evidence is to be construed while deciding reference petitions or re-determining the market value of the acquired land. 12. What is this market value, which requires to be determined is no longer res integra. The Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay. 13. The market value of a property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value. { Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat , (1989) 4 SCC 250 , Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. , (2007) 9 SCC 447 }. 14. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. ( Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another , (2008) 2 SCC 568 ) . 15. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. ( Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another , (2008) 2 SCC 568 ) . 15. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. , (2005) 12 SCC 1, the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 16. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal , (1989) 2 SCC 329 , the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. 17. Also it is a settled principle of law that if land is fully utilized for public purpose and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 18. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others , (2010) 11 SCC 581 , Collector Land Acquisition, uniformly determined the market value of the acquired land. It is not in dispute that the entire acquired land stands fully utilized for the public purpose. As such, ratio of law laid down in Haridwar Development Authority , stands correctly applied to the attending facts. 19. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others , (2005) 12 SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the Apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 20. 19. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others , (2005) 12 SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the Apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 20. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer , (2007) 9 SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. 21. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P. , (1998) AIR(HP) 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors. , (2003) 3 ShimLC 64 , which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 22. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dilla Ram, 2008 LatestHLJ 1007 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh , wherein the market value of the land under acquisition, situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates. 23. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Railway line constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such there cannot be any error in uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land. 24. This Court is of the considered view that considering the evidence led by the parties, interference to the limited extent is warranted. Award dated 31.03.2011 (Ex.P-3) , passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in L.A.C. Petition No.1/03 RBT 44/05/03, titled as Rajinder Singh & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) , Una, H.P., pertains to village Dilwan, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby the amount of compensation stands re-determined @ Rs.700/- per sq.mts. irrespective of classification and category. irrespective of classification and category. Noticeably, Award dated 25.06.2011 (Ex.P-5) , passed by District Judge, Una, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No.39 of 2009, titled as Sukh Ram vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) , Una, District Una, H.P. & others, is also to similar effect. Though, it pertains to another village i.e. revenue estate Chururu, Una. 25. Now it has come in the evidence of Prem Chand (PW.1) that villages Dilwan, Chururu and Katohar Khurd, are situate on the superhighway and also adjoining to the land in question, situate in village Ghandawal. Not only that the witness further states that the land in all these villages are of same nature, having similar potential and value, but the land, subject matter of the present appeals, situate adjoining to the national highways i.e. super highway i.e. Una-Dharamshala, which leads to the neighbouring States (Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir) . In fact, witness has placed on record the site maps (Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8) explaining the exact location of the land and its proximity to the highway. 26. Witness further states that whereas with respect to the other three villages, compensation determined on the basis of potential and value, which principle is not adopted and applied in the acquired land, subject matter of the instant acquisition proceedings. 27. One finds that there is no challenge by the beneficiary to the same. It is under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Reference Court rightly re-determined and enhanced the market value of the acquired land, so as to make it at par with the exemplar awards (Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-5) . But however, the belting system so to say adopted by the Reference Court in awarding different rates varying from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per sq.mts. is not in consonance with the settled principle of law, particularly when it has come on record that the entire acquired land had the same and similar potential and could be put to any similar use. 28. Under these circumstances, while interfering with the award dated 30.04.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in L.A.C. Petition No.91 of 2008, titled as Om Prakash & others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) Una, H.P., alongwith other reference petitions, the claimants are uniformly entitled to the market value @ Rs.700/- per sq.mts. irrespective of its location, category and classification. 29. irrespective of its location, category and classification. 29. As such, the impugned award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly present appeals as also the cross-objections stand disposed of, so also pending application(s) , if any.