JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These appeals have been preferred by State against awards of even dated 11.9.2017, passed in LAC Petition Nos. 18/2016, titled Manoj Kumar and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 16/2016, titled Tilak Raj and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 14/2016, titled Usha Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 13/2016, titled Jodh Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 12/2016, titled Kikar Singh and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 10/2016, titled Pawan Kumar and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and 11/2016, titled Anoop Singh and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. All these appeals are being decided by this common judgment, as common question of law and fact, involved therein, is to be adjudicated on the basis of identical facts and circumstances. 3. In all these cases appellants-State has acquired land located in Mohal Parchhod, Tehsil Bhattiyat, District Chamba, H.P. for public purpose i.e. for construction of Finna Singh Medium Irrigation Scheme, after resorting to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the Act for short), by issuing common notification dated 22.6.2013 under Section 4 of the Act, which was published lastly on 14.8.2013. After completing the codal formalities, Land Acquisition Collector has determined the value of land ranging from Rs.3520/- per biswa to Rs.23,320/- per biswa on the basis of classification of land by passing an award. 4. Being aggrieved by value of land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, respondents/claimants/land owners had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 64 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Reference Court has determined the value of land at uniform rate by taking into consideration the highest value determined by Land Acquisition Collector i.e. Rs.23,320/- per biswa. 5. Land in question was acquired by the State for construction of irrigation scheme and has been fully utilized for the said purpose, without undertaking any activity of development for utilization of the same. 5. Land in question was acquired by the State for construction of irrigation scheme and has been fully utilized for the said purpose, without undertaking any activity of development for utilization of the same. The purpose for which the land has been acquired has no relevance with the classification or quality of land under acquisition and it is settled law that in such a situation value of entire acquired land is to be determined at uniform rate, irrespective of its kind, nature, classification and category. (See Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 , Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, Nelson Fernades Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2007(7) SCC 447, Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP, Himmat Singh and others Vs,. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2013) 16 SCC 392 , Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan (Dead) By Legal Representatives and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 10 SCC 469 , as also RFA No. 953 of 2012, titled as Land Acquisition Collector & another Vs. Jatinder Singh, decided on 1.6.2016 and RFA No. 202 of 2016 along with connected maters, titled as Land Acquisition Collector HPPCL Vs. Daleep Singh and others, decided on 16.8.2018). 6. It is also settled law that Reference Court cannot determine the value of land in Reference Petitions, less than the value determined by Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, in any case least value of acquired land was to be determined at the highest rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In present case the Reference Court has not determined the value of land more than the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, but at the highest rate given by the Land Acquisition Collector, as Reference Court was bound to determine the value at least at par with the value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 7. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity, irregularity, illegality or perversity in the value determined by the Reference Court at uniform rate, which is nothing, but highest value of the acquired land, as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. 8. In view of above discussion, I find no merits in the appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.