JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the award pronounced by the learned Reference Court, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 11-S/4 of 2006/04, whereunder, the aforesaid reference petition, stood hence dismissed. 2. The land acquisition collector concerned, had vis-a-vis the landowners' land, as, brought to acquisition, hence, pronounced an award, whereunder, he assessed compensation amount vis-a-vis the lands, of the landowners, in the hereinafter extracted manner:- Sr. No. Classification of land Rate per Bihga 1 Kulahu Awal Rs.1,53,579-20 2. Kulahu Doyam Rs.1,26,958-80 3. Bakhal Awal Rs.79,861-20 4. Banjar/Ghasni Rs.12,286-20 The aforesaid computation of compensation, at variant rates vis-a-vis contradistinct categories of land, brought to acquisition, apparently, is in consonance, with, the apposite rates, as, approved by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the award pronounced, by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, had hence constituted before the Collector concerned, a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for hence it being referred to the learned Reference Court. Upon the learned Reference Court, hence, receiving the petition, cast, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, it proceeded to pronounce the impugned award. Being aggrieved therefrom, the landowners/appellants herein, hence, motioned this Court. 3. The learned Reference Court, had discountenanced, the probative vigour, of, the sale exemplars, respectively borne in Ex.PW4/A, and, the one borne in Ex.PW1/A. The merit-worthiness of the learned Reference Court in discarding the aforesaid sale exemplars, is to be tested, on anvil, of, existence, of, evidence in display of (a) lands respectively borne therein, being established by cogent evidence, to be holding vis-avis the land(s) brought to acquisition, the requisite, proximity in location angle, and, (b) proximity in time angle, unfolded by the closest contemporaneity in timing, of, execution of the apposite sale exemplars, and, the issuance of the apposite notification, whereunder the land(s) of the appellants herein hence stood brought to acquisition. 4. 4. For determining whether the aforesaid sale exemplars, hence, satiating the principle, of the lands embodied therein, holding proximity in time angle vis-a-vis the lands brought to acquisition, an allusion to the notification, issued under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, is imperative, wherein, it is displayed, of it, being issued in the year 1997, and, with the sale exemplars being also executed in proximity thereto, thereupon, the test, of, occurrence, of, imperative inter se proximity, of, time angle, arising, from evident execution(s) of sale deeds hence occurring in close proximity vis-a-vis the issuance of the apposite notification, is evidently meted satiation. However, even if the aforesaid parameter, is evidently satiated, nonetheless it is also imperative, for, the claimants, for, hence constraining any placing, of, any implicit reliance thereupon, to also adduce, further evidence in satiation of the other, principle, of proximity in location angle, (a) arising from the lands borne, in the respective sale exemplars, being located in the closest proximity, to the lands brought to acquisition. However, a close reading of the testifications, of, the petitioners' witnesses, omits to unveil, of theirs making, any, vivid clear echoing(s) of the lands borne, in the sale exemplars, hence, holding the closest proximity in location vis-a-vis the location, of, the lands brought to acquisition, thereupon, with the aforesaid principle remaining unsatiated, hence, no reliance can be placed upon the sale exemplars. 5. Be that as it may, the learned reference Court, had also countenanced, the contradistinctivity(ies) in the approved market rates vis-a-vis contradistinct categories of lands, as, brought to acquisition, for hence its assessing the compensation amount. The aforesaid countenancing, by the learned refence Court, does not warrant any vindication, being meted thereto, (a)especially given the lands brought to acquisition, being evidently acquired for a common purpose, inasmuch as for construction of pump house, and, a link road. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned, under, the impugned award, determined compensation qua the lands brought, to acquisition, at diverse rate(s), vis-a-vis contradistinct/varying categories of land, as, were brought, to acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned, under, the impugned award, determined compensation qua the lands brought, to acquisition, at diverse rate(s), vis-a-vis contradistinct/varying categories of land, as, were brought, to acquisition. The aforesaid diverse determination(s) of compensation amounts, for contradistinct categories of lands, is per se illegal, given a catena of judicial verdicts, making forthright pronouncements, (i) of, though acquired lands, hence, carrying different, and, varying classifications, nonetheless, when they are evidently acquired for a common purpose, (ii) thereupon, the factum, of theirs bearing contradistinct nomenclature(s), in the apposite classification column of the revenue record , being insignificant, (iii) rather all contradistinct categories of lands being amenable to determination, of uniform rate(s) of compensation. Thereupon, though uncontrovertedly, the acquired lands, bear varying categories/classifications, nonetheless, when they stand acquired, for, a common purpose, (iv) thereupon, bearing in mind the settled principles of law, of, acquisition of lands, for a common public purpose, as the lands in the instant case, stood acquired, for construction of a pump house, and, a link road, hence in consonance therewith, wholly rendering insignificant, the effect, of, theirs carrying distinct categorizations or varying classifications, (v) especially when in sequel, to, the completion of the public purpose for which the lands are acquired, inasmuch as, on completion of construction of pump house, and, a link road, their diverse classifications, and, categorizations, hence lose, significance, (vi) rather hence with theirs holding an innate common/uniform potentiality, concomitantly, hence, necessitates assessment, of, uniform/common rates, of compensation, for each diverse category(ies) of acquired land(s). Obviously, thereupon uniform rates of compensation ought to be assessed, for, different categories of lands or lands bearing different classifications. Since, apparently, the apposite assessment has occurred, in contravention, of, the settled legal position, envisaging assessment of uniform rates, of compensation qua lands bearing different categories/classifications, (vii) especially when lands bearing different classification, were, acquired for a common public purpose, hence the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, has proceeded to untenably assess varying or distinct rates of compensation, for lands bearing distinct categories or classifications, thereupon, he has irrevered the aforesaid principle of law, hence, both the Reference Court, and, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, have committed an impropriety. The said impropriety needs to be undone. 6. The said impropriety needs to be undone. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed and it is held that the rate of compensation for all categories of land, including land(s) of the appellants herein, shall be at the rate assessed qua Kulahu Awal i.e. Rs.1,53,579.20 per bigha along with all the statutory benefits detailed hereinafter:- (a) Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. (b) In addition to the market value, the appellants are held entitled to get solatium or compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% on such market value as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act; and (c) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act upto one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum, till payment is made in the Court as provided under Section 34 of the Act. The impugned award is modified accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.