JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals along with cross-objections arising out of the common award dated 21.01.2012, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short) passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., are being decided by this common judgment, as identical question of facts and law is under consideration on the basis of common evidence led in lead case being Reference Case RBT No.232-J/2010/2006, titled as Brijesh Chander vs. Land Acquisition Collector (RFA No.554 of 2012). 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant-State has acquired land in Mohal and Mauja Jawali, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the purpose of construction of Sidhatha Irrigation Canal by resorted to the procedure prescribed under the Act after issuing notification dated 31.03.2004 under Section 4 of the Act. After completing all codal formalities, Award No.4, dated 15.10.2005 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector' in short) determining the value of the land @ Rs.15,00,000/- per hectare. 3. Being aggrieved by value determined by the Collector, land owners had preferred Land Reference Petitions RBT No.232-J/2010/2006, titled as Brijesh Chander vs. Land Acquisition Collector; 233-J/2010/2006, titled as Rani Sanjogita Devi vs. Land Acquisition Collector; 234- J/2010/2006, titled as Ravindra Kumar vs. Land Acquisition Collector; 235-J/2010/2006, titled as Parveen Kumari vs. Land Acquisition Collector; and 236-J/2010/2006, titled as Ravindra Devi and another vs. Land Acquisition Collector, which have been decided by the Reference Court vide impugned common Award dated 21.01.2012. Against the said Award, appellant State has filed appeals against the enhancement of compensation and some of land owners have filed cross objections for further enhancement. 4. Last publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the present cases, was made on 25.05.2004. Land owners have examined two witnesses in their favour. Brijesh Chander (PW.1) is one of the land owners, whereas, Mahinder Singh (PW.2) is a Patwari, Patwar Circle, Jawali. In evidence of Mahinder Singh (PW.2), respondents have proved on record one year average value of the land (Ex.PW.2/E) pertaining to Mohal Jawali, for the period 01.12.2002 to 30.11.2003. This period is beyond the period of 12 months from the date of last publication, therefore, it has neither been taken into consideration by the Reference Court nor could have been taken. This period is beyond the period of 12 months from the date of last publication, therefore, it has neither been taken into consideration by the Reference Court nor could have been taken. Land owners have also relied upon Sale Deed (Ex.PW.1/A), wherein land belonging to the same Mohal i.e. Jawali measuring 386 centiare was sold @ Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.07.2003 which gives value of land @ Rs.260/- per centiare. This sale deed is within one year of issuance and last publication of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Respondents have examined one witness Jai Singh (RW.1), Kanungo of Land Acquisition Collector, Shah Nahar, who in his deposition has justified value of the land determined by the Collector on the basis of average value, which has been placed on record as Ex.RW.1/E pertaining to the period 05.05.2003 to 04.05.2004. In this average value, value of the land belonging to land owners has been determined @ Rs.15,00,000/- per hectare. But value of the land cannot be determined only on the basis of one year average value, particularly when exemplar sale deed is available on record. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly ignored this document relied upon by the appellant-State. Only exemplar sale deed available on record is Ex.PW.1/A, on the basis of which Reference Court has determined the value of land. Genuineness of this exemplar sale deed has not been disputed by the appellant-State. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly taken this sale deed into consideration for determining the value of the land as there is no other cogent and reliable evidence on record to determine the value of land. 6. After considering the base value of the land in the year, 2003, on the basis of sale deed (Ex.PW.1/A), Reference Court has adopted the method on the basis of pronouncement of the Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority Haridwar vs. Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , wherein, in identical facts, as the sale deed was of small chunk of land, the Apex Court has approved deduction of 25% in the market value of the land arrived at on the basis of sale deed, which was executed 12 months ago from the date of last publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter has given increase of 12% in view of the fact that sale deed was executed 12 months ago from the date of issuance of Notification. 7. In present cases also Reference Court firstly after adding 10% increase for one year has arrived at the value of land @ Rs.286/- per centiare in the year, 2004 and thereafter has deducted 25% value therein for sale deed was of small chunk of land and has arrived at the value of land @ Rs.214.50 per centiare. In case the calculation is made according to the judgment of the Apex Court, then also, 25% is to be deducted from Rs.260/- per centiare, which will give value of land @ Rs.195/- per centiare and after adding 10% therein, it would become Rs.214.5 per centiare, which is the same amount, which has been determined by the Reference Court. Calculation, either way, is giving the same value of land. Therefore, no change in value of land, determined by the Reference Court, is warranted. Therefore, in my opinion, Reference Court on the basis of evidence available on record has rightly determined value of acquired land. Accordingly, these appeals as well as cross-objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. Record be sent back. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.