JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. In these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the beneficiaries of the acquisition proceedings have assailed the common award dated 28.12.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge(I) , Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., in Reference Petition No.9 of 2009, titled as Ram Dass and others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and others, alongwith connected matters. The claimants have also filed cross-objection in RFA No.249 of 2014 (Cross-Objection No.34 of 2015). 2. In terms of the impugned award, the Court below has re-determined the market value @ Rs.1, 58, 400/- per Kanal. 3. Both, the beneficiaries and the claimants are aggrieved of such fact. 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. Acquisition proceedings for the land in question commenced with the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the official gazette on 31.10.2000. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his award on 28.8.2001 determining the market value, category wise, ranging from 1263.32 to 33137.95 per Kanal. The entire land acquired for public purpose namely construction of "Nangal-Talwara Railway Line" stands fully utilized for such purpose. 5. The claimants claim compensation @ Rs.10, 00, 000/- per Kanal whereas the beneficiary contends the determination of the market rate by the Collector to be reflective of true and correct market value of the acquired land. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference, at all, is required in the impugned award. The same is based on correct and complete appreciation of material placed on record by the parties and after fully applying the settled principles of law. 7. Noticeably, one of the claimants, Ram Kishan examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record sale deed dated 20.9.2000 (Ex.P-1) and Award dated 1.12.1998, passed in Land Reference Case No.3/1991, titled as Siri Ram and others vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others (Ex. P-4) alongwith connected matters. There is no material establishing the similarity of the exemplar sale deed with that of the land in question. 8. Insofar as award (Ex.P-4) is concerned, it pertains to village Ajnauli, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. Significantly, the land in question is also situate in the very same village. 9. P-4) alongwith connected matters. There is no material establishing the similarity of the exemplar sale deed with that of the land in question. 8. Insofar as award (Ex.P-4) is concerned, it pertains to village Ajnauli, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. Significantly, the land in question is also situate in the very same village. 9. From the ocular evidence, it stands established that not only the acquired land had great potential to put to commercial/residential use, for it is in close proximity to the township of Una but also is similar in potential and use with regard to the land in the exemplar award. Court below, in Para-22 of the impugned judgment has returned the findings with regard to the availability of the infrastructure, commercial or otherwise, in close vicinity of the acquired land. 10. 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. 11. The Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. Also it has acknowledged the principle of providing increase in the market value up to 10% to 12% per year for the land situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. 14. 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. 15. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs. Dilla Ram, 2008 Latest HLJ 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. 16. 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. 17. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals as also the Cross-Objection stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.