JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The land owners’ land become acquired, for, construction, of, a pump house. Evidently, the acquired land stands classified, in, the apposite revenue record, as, “Ghasni Land.” 2. The land Acquisition Collector, vis-a-vis, the afore acquired land, hence, owned by the respondents herein, had assessed compensation borne, in, a sum of Rs.27,447/- per bigha. The land owners becoming aggrieved, cast a challenge thereagainst, through, preferring, a, Land Reference Petition, before the learned District Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 3. The learned Reference Court, under, the impugned award, has, vis-a-vis the acquired land, hence assessed compensation, at, the rate of Rs.11,43,625/- per bigha, and, also all the statutory benefits also became levied thereon. 4. The State of Himachal Pradesh becoming aggrieved therefrom, has, hence through constituting the instant appeal before this Court, has, strived to beget reversal thereof. 5. Apparently the dependence, as, made by the land owners, upon, Ex. PW-1/B, and, upon Ex. PW-1/C, for, there-through compensation amount becoming assessed, hence above the amounts, rather determined, by, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, becomes tenably declined, and, rejected. Apparently, for evident wants, of, the requisite, and, legally imperative parameters remaining unsatiated, and, comprised, in, inter-se proximity occurring inter-se lands, borne in the afore sale exemplars, and, vis-a-vis the acquired lands, (i) and also for lack of evidence, qua inter-se proximity rather occurring inter-se the issuance, of, a notification under Section 4, of, the Land Acquisition Act, wherethrough, the, acquired lands, were, proposed to be put to acquisition, and, vis a-vis the afore executed sale exemplars, hence becoming adduced, reiteratedly, for, bringing satiation hence thereto. 6. Be that as it may, dehors, yet rather with no other tangible evidence existing on record, before the learned Reference Court, to, aptly facilitate it, to, proceed to determine, just fair and reasonable compensation, vis-a-vis, the acquired land, (a) however, the learned Reference Court, despite, the acquired lands becoming evidently categorized, as, “Ghasni Land”, and, also despite the category of “Kuhal Land” becoming not put to acquisition, rather proceeded, to, vis-a-vis, the afore category of acquired land, mete thereon compensation amount, as, determined, by, the Collector concerned, vis-a-vis, “Kuhal Land”, and, as borne in a sum, of, Rs.11,43,625 per bigha. The afore adoption by the learned Reference Court, is, a gross befitting recourse, as, it would beget validation, only, upon apart from the category, of, “Ghasni Land” becoming acquired, also, a substantial part of “Kuhal Land” becoming also put to acquisition, for, the requisite purpose, and, obviously, upon, hence both the afore categories of land, becoming acquired, for, a common public purpose, (i) reiteratedly thereupon contradistinction (s), in, the categories of acquired lands, would become insignificant, and, also would become eclipsed. Since, the afore evidence is amiss, rather when evidently, only, the category of “Ghasni Land” has become put to acquisition, thereupon the determination, of, compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the category of “Ghasni Land”, on anvil, of, the market value carried, by a superior thereto category, of, “Kuhal Land” is grossly insagacious. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, and, the impugned award is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.