JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since both the appeals arise, from, a common verdict being recorded, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 37/4 of 2013, and, upon Land Reference Petition No. 40/4 of 2013, hence by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P, hence are amenable for a common decision being rendered thereon. 2. Visibly the respondent had reared, two land reference petition (s), under Section 18, of, the Land Acquisition Act, rather against, the award (s) pronounced, by, the Collector concerned, and when both appertain, to, similar, and, analogous tract (s) of land, hence, owned by the respondent, (i) thereupon, only one amongst, of, the afore two reference petitions, is, maintainable before the learned reference Court concerned, (ii) in, as much as Land Reference Petition No. 40-4/2013 is validly constituted therebefore, whereas Land Reference Petition No. 37-4/2013 became mis-constituted. Consequently, only the award made by the learned Reference Court, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 40/4 of 2013, is, validly made, whereas, the award recorded by the learned Reference Court, hence upon Land Reference Petition No. 37-4/2013, is invalidly made, besides, hence RFA No. 223 of 2016, as has, arisen thereagainst, is, dismissed, and, also the award whereagainst it stands directed, is, set aside. In sequel, this Court would proceed, to, make a decision, upon, RFA No. 224 of 2016 as arises, from, an award made, upon, Land Reference Petition No. 40/4 of 2013. 3. Upon, the, afore land reference petition bearing No. 40/4 of 2013, the learned Reference Court, had, vis-a-vis, the land owners, whose lands become acquired, hence assessed compensation qua them, rather at the rate of Rs.220/- per sqmt, and, also levied thereon solatium, at the rate of 30%, vis-a-vis, the market value of lands/structures, and, thereafter also assessed, vis-a-vis, the land owners concerned, all consequential therewith hence apt statutory benefits. 4. The learned Reference Court, had, while assessing, the, market value of the acquired lands, hence occurring, in, village Mandyali, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P, had meted deference, to, previous awards, borne in Ex. PW- 1/A, and, in Ex. PW-1/B, awards whereof appertain, to, construction of Shri Naina Devi Ji-Kulan Da Toba Road, road whereof, is, the one for whose construction, the, extant land hence become acquired. However in both Ex. PW- 1/A, and, in Ex. PW-1/B, awards whereof appertain, to, construction of Shri Naina Devi Ji-Kulan Da Toba Road, road whereof, is, the one for whose construction, the, extant land hence become acquired. However in both Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B, (a) rather the learned Reference Court concerned, had, vis-a-vis, the acquired lands therein, as, borne in village Mandyali Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, hence determined, the, market value thereof, in a sum of Rs. 126/- per square meter, (b) whereas, vis-a-vis, the lands borne in village Jole, the, Reference Court concerned, had, determined market value thereof, in, a sum of Rs. 220/- per square meter, (c) however, yet in the impugned verdict the learned Reference Court, had proceeded, to, rather mete the market values, determined, vis-a-vis, the lands borne, in, village Jole, a village contradistinct from hereat village (s), and, whereon, the acquired lands hereat, hence occur in as much as, in village Mandyali, and rather qua therewith. 5. However, a perusal of impugned verdict, unfolds that, the afore lands quawherewith Ex. PW-1/A, and, PW-1/B became rendered hence became acquired, for, a public purpose rather bearing analogity, vis-a-vis, the lands acquired hereat. 6. Further more, as, aforestated, also perusal, of, the impugned verdict, reveals, that the determination, of, market value, vis-a-vis, the lands occurring in village Jole, became pegged in a sum of Rs.220/- square meter, (i) whereas, the market value of land occurring in village Mandyali, became computed, in, a sum of Rs. 126/- per square meter. Nonetheless in the impugned award, though, the learned Reference Court has made reliance, upon, Ex. PW-1/A and, upon, Ex. PW- 1/B, yet the learned Reference Court, (ii) despite, the afore contradistinctivity of market values, made, vis-a-vis, the lands occurring, in, village Jole, and, vis-a-vis the lands occurring in village Mandyali, has pegged the market value of lands, as, became acquired hereat, in, a sum of Rs. 220/- per square meter. In sequel the learned Additional Advocate General contends, that, since the acquired lands hereat, occur in village Mandyali and quawherewith in the previous award the apt market value, of, lands borne therein became computed in a sum of Rs. 220/- per square meter. In sequel the learned Additional Advocate General contends, that, since the acquired lands hereat, occur in village Mandyali and quawherewith in the previous award the apt market value, of, lands borne therein became computed in a sum of Rs. 126 per square meter, (i) thereupon, the market value of lands appertaining to village Jole become inapplicable to village Mandyali and, determination, of, market value (s), vis-a-vis, the acquired lands hereat, on anvil, of the apposite determination made qua village Jole, becoming not an apt parameter, on, anvil whereof, the compensation amount, was assessable, vis-a-vis, the lands acquired hereat. 7. However, the afore submission is rudderless, as evidently, given, the inter-se proximity in location, of, acquired lands borne in village Mandyali, vis-a-vis the lands occurring in village Jole, quawherewith, the apt market value, became computed in a sum of Rs.220/- per square meter, in, the previous awards, (a) and when also it is evident vis-a-vis both village Jole and village Mandyali, occurring in the closest proximity, to, Shri Naina Devi Ji Mandir, (b) whereupon both hold compatible potentiality appertaining to compatible market values, (c) whereupon the afore, inter-se, proximity in location, inter-se, the lands located in village Jole, and, the lands located in village Mandyali, does satiate, the principle of proximity of location occurring inter-se both the afore villages (d) whereupon the dependence, upon, the computation of apposite market value (s), as, made in the afore rendered exhibits, and, appertaining, to, village Jole, for thereupon, hence determining compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the lands acquired hereat, as, occur in village Mandyali, is, neither inapt nor unmeritworthy, (e) unless evidence surges forth and becomes adduced, by the respondents given the petitioner not stepping into the witness box, hence suggestive, vis-a-vis, the afore lands acquired hereat, being remotely located, vis-a-vis, the lands located, in, village Jole. However, the afore evidence is amiss, thereupon, the dependence made by the learned Reference Court, upon, Ex. PW-1/A, and, upon PW-1/B, to, on anvil thereof, hence compute compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the hereat acquired lands is neither insagacious nor unbefitting. 8. In view of the above, RFA No. 224 of 2016 is dismissed, alongwith, all pending applications. Impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back.