JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. All these appeals along with cross objections in two cases, arising out of common award passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Additional District Judge-II, Shimla Camp at Rohru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’) are being decided vide this common judgment as common question of facts and law are involved in these appeals. 2. Before Reference Court, Land References No. RBT 48-R/4 of 2014/09, titled Parshant Kumar and others versus State of H.P, through its Secretary Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others; RBT62-R/4 of 2014/09, titled Lalit Mohan and others versus State of H.P. through its Secretary Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others; RBT67- R/4 of 2014/09, titled Murat Singh versus State of H.P. through its Secretary Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others; RBT54-R/4 of 2014/09, titled Mohan Singh versus State of H.P. through its Secretary Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others; were clubbed together. 3. All these reference petitions were filed for enhancement of compensation against the award of Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Collector’) in Award No. 593, dated 31st May, 2008. The Reference Court has determined value of acquired land @ Rs.3038/- per centiare. 4. It is undisputed fact that the State of Himachal Pradesh has acquired land in Villages Hatkoti, Chamsu, Bharot, Mungranadal, Ghunsa, Chauri, etc. for construction of Sawra Kuddu Hydro Electric Project by issuing various notifications under Section 4 of the Act and the Collector had determined the amount of compensation by separate awards in every case arising out of particular notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in that case. First award passed by the Collector was Award No. 585, dated 18th July, 2007. 5. In Award No. 585, the Collector had classified the land in three categories and had determined the value of land of the said three categories as under: (i) Irrigated land : 821.00 (per centiare) ? (ii) Un-irrigated/cultivated land : 509.00 per centiare ? (iii) Uncultivated land : 161.00 ? 6. 5. In Award No. 585, the Collector had classified the land in three categories and had determined the value of land of the said three categories as under: (i) Irrigated land : 821.00 (per centiare) ? (ii) Un-irrigated/cultivated land : 509.00 per centiare ? (iii) Uncultivated land : 161.00 ? 6. Thereafter, relying upon the market value of land determined in the said Award No. 585, Collector had determined the value of land of other villages at par with that of Village Hatkoti, as determined in Award No. 585 and had awarded the compensation on the basis of that for the acquired land in aforesaid villages. 7. The impugned award passed by the Collector has also been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/E wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26th May 2006 and was lastly published on 24th June, 2006 and Collector had awarded the compensation at the same rate as was awarded in Award No. 585, which reads as under: (i) Irrigated land : 821.00 (per centiare) ? (ii) Un-irrigated/cultivated land : 509.00 per centiare ? (iii) Uncultivated land : 161.00 ? 8. The land owners had sought enhancement in the amount of compensation determined vide Award No. 585 by preferring reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Those reference petitions were decided by the Reference Court vide common award passed in Land Reference Petitions No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08, titled Sh. Narayan Singh and others versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, wherein the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation by determining the value of acquired land at the rate of 3038/- ? per centiare. 9. The said award was assailed by the project proponent in RFA No. 368 of 2014, titled The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and another versus Narayan Singh and others, and its connected matters. This Court, while allowing those appeals, i.e., RFA No. 368 of 2014 and its connected matters, has determined the market value of the land at the rate of 2700/- per centiare ? with respect to the land of Village Hatkoti involved in Award No. 585 wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6th August, 2005 and was published lastly on 26th December, 2005. 10. Land owners have examined one witness each. with respect to the land of Village Hatkoti involved in Award No. 585 wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6th August, 2005 and was published lastly on 26th December, 2005. 10. Land owners have examined one witness each. Whereas project proponent has examined RW1 Rajvir only, who has proved one year average Ext.RW1/A, pertaining to period 26.12.2004 to 25.12.2005. In his examination-in-chief, he has categorically stated that since no sale transactions were affected in Mauja Ghunsa during the relevant period, therefore, market value, as was assessed vide Award No. 585 of Mauja Hatkoti (Ex. RW-1/A), was applied to the present chak. 11. In present case, land owners have relied upon Ex. PW-1/A Award No. 1 of 2006, Ext.PW1/B sale deed No. 13 of 2005, Ext.PW1/C sale deed 12 of 2005. These documents have also relied upon by the land owners in RFA No. 368 of 2014 along with connected matters i.e. Award No. 1 of 2006 as Ex. PW-1/E (RFA No. 368 of 2014), sale deed No. 13 of 2005 as Ext.PW1/D (RFA No.166 of 2016) and sale deed No. 12 of 2005 as Ex. PW-1/C (RFA No. 166 of 2016) respectively. Besides this land owners have also relied upon award passed in case RBT No. 53-S/4 of 2013/08 titled Narayan Singh and others vs. HPSEB and others as Ext.PW1/D in RFA No. 235 of 2016. 12. One year average relied upon by project proponent herein was also considered in RFA No. 368 of 2012 which was exhibited therein as Ext.RW1/B. 13. From the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the land owners as well as project proponent are banking upon the same evidence, led in the reference petitions, which was subject matter of RFA No. 368 of 2014 and its connected matters and the entire evidence relied upon by the parties, in present appeals, has already been considered in detail in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and connected matters. 14. In judgment, dated 12th October, 2018, passed in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and its connected matters, the cases were categorized by this Court in three categories, i.e. Lots ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. 14. In judgment, dated 12th October, 2018, passed in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and its connected matters, the cases were categorized by this Court in three categories, i.e. Lots ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. The cases of Village Hatkoti were classified as Lot ‘A’ whereas in Lots ‘B’ and ‘C’, cases of other villages, wherein amount of compensation was determined by the Collector on the basis of award of Village Hatkoti, were included. In Lot ‘B’, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.5.2006, which was lastly published on 14th June 2006 whereas in Lot ‘C’, notification under Section 4 was issued three years later, in August, 2008. In present case, notification under Section 4 was issued on 26.5.2006 and was published lastly on 14th June, 2006. Therefore, present case is identical to the cases categorized as Lot ‘B’ in RFA No. 368 of 2014 and its connected matters. 15. In view of above discussion, present set of appeals alongwith with cross-objections are squarely covered by judgment, dated 12th October, 2018, passed by this Court in RFA No. 368 of 2014, titled The Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited and another versus Narayan Singh and others, and its connected matters and the same shall apply mutatis mutandi to the present cases. Therefore, the land owners, in present case, are also entitled for compensation at the rate of 2700/- per centiare alongwith consequential? statutory benefits, in accordance with law, in terms of judgment, dated 12th October, 2018, passed in RFA No. 368 of 2014 (supra) and its connected matters. All appeals stand allowed and cross-objections are dismissed accordingly in the aforesaid terms.