JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - These appeals, arise out of the common award dated 2 nd December, 2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., in LAC Petition No.17N/4 of 2008 titled as Ramesh & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector & others, LAC Petition No.18 N/4 of 2008 titled as Smt. Shyama Devi & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector & others, LAC Petition No.19 N/4 of 2008 titled as Kesar Singh & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector & others, LAC Petition No.20N/4 of 2008 titled as Lajender Singh & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector & others and LAC Petition No.21N/4 of 2008 titled as Rajender & others Versus Land Acquisition Collector & others, are being decided by this common judgment, as common questions of Law and facts, based on common evidence, are involved therein. 2. The respondent/State has acquired the land situated in village Dadhog, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), after issuing notification dated 23 rd February, 2006, under Section 4 of the Act , for the public purpose i.e. JamtaRajban Road. After completing the process under the Act, award No.8 of 2008 dated 20 th June, 2008 was announced under Section 11 of the Act , wherein the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation after determining the value of acquired land on the basis of its classification by determining the rate of various kinds of land ranging from ? 3,894/ per bigha to ?1,28, 502/ per bigha, on the basis of one year average value of land situated in adjoining village Dhagida, for the reason that no sale transaction had taken place in village Dadhog, one year prior to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, land owners/appellants had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act , which have been decided vide impugned award dated 2 nd December, 2013 passed by the Reference Court, whereby the Reference Court has awarded compensation at uniform rate of ?1,29,000/ per bigha, irrespective of category of classification of the acquired land along with statutory benefits admissible thereon, as per provisions of the Act. Award passed by the Reference Court has been assailed by land owners in present appeals. 4. Award passed by the Reference Court has been assailed by land owners in present appeals. 4. Before the Reference Court, land owners have examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Yashveer Singh (Patwari), PW2 Heera Singh (Patwari), PW3 Amar Singh (Vendee in sale deed Ext.PW3/A), PW4 Ramesh Kumar (land owner) and PW5 Kamlesh Kumar (Range Officer of the Forest Department), whereas the respondent/State has examined only one witness Jagat Singh (J.E.) as RW1. 5. The land owners have relied upon the sale deed Ext.PW3/A dated 23 rd June, 2006, pertaining to village Dadhog itself, wherein the land measuring 3 biswa has been sold for ?60,000/ and also sale deed Ext.PX dated 28 th October, 2006, pertaining to village Jamta, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., wherein 10 biswa of land has been sold for ?1,50,000/. 6. Learned counsel for the land owners has also prayed for additional compensation in terms of judgments passed in R.L. Jain Versus DDA (2004) 4 SCC 79 , Tahera Khotoon and Others Versus Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and Others (2014) 13, SCC 613, Balwan Singh and Others Versus Land Acquisition Collector and Another (2016) 13 SCC 412 , for utilizing the land in question, for construction of road since April, 1986. 7. Relying upon the judgment passed in Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and Others Versus Land Acquisition Officer and Another (2012) 1 SCC 390 (Para 37), learned counsel for land owners has submitted that when no sale deed prior to date of notification is available, the sale deeds of the period subsequent to the issuance of notification can be taken into consideration after making suitable deduction. 8. The land owners have also relied upon the list of trees Ext.PW2/A and valuation thereof Ext.PW5/A, wherein value of trees standing on their acquired land were carried out by the forest officials including PW5, but no compensation has been awarded either by the Land Acquisition Collector or by the Reference Court by the impugned award. 9. 8. The land owners have also relied upon the list of trees Ext.PW2/A and valuation thereof Ext.PW5/A, wherein value of trees standing on their acquired land were carried out by the forest officials including PW5, but no compensation has been awarded either by the Land Acquisition Collector or by the Reference Court by the impugned award. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Land Acquisition Collector has rightly relied upon the average value of village Dhagida, for determination of value of the land and accordingly, on the basis of said average value, compensation determined by the Reference Court at the rate of 1,29,000/ per bigha, for all kinds of land does not warrant interference, as the sale deeds being relied upon by the land owners/appellants are the transactions subsequent to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record so as to corroborate the claim of land owners with respect to existence of trees on the acquired land, particularly keeping in view the admission of PW5 in crossexamination, wherein he has categorically stated that evaluation by him was carried on 25 th February, 2012 and he was not able to produce any document establishing the existence of trees on the acquired land. He has also submitted that there is no evidence on record regarding taking of possession of the land for construction of road in April, 1986. 10. PW2 Heera Singh, in his examinationinchief has stated that in the file of award No.8 of 2008, list of trees is appended, wherein it is recorded that details of trees shall be prepared during the proceedings under Sections 6 & 7 of the Act. He has further stated that in original file, at the time of proceedings under Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, list of trees was not prepared. However, in the old lapsed file, list of trees is there, copy whereof Ext.PW2/A is true and correct according to the original. He has further submitted that compensation for trees has not been paid to the land owners. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that Ext.PW2/A had not been prepared in his presence and he had no knowledge about some of trees and he had not visited the spot. 11. He has further submitted that compensation for trees has not been paid to the land owners. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that Ext.PW2/A had not been prepared in his presence and he had no knowledge about some of trees and he had not visited the spot. 11. PW5 Kamlesh Kumar, has produced the valuation of trees Ext.PW5/A. But in his crossexamination, he has failed to substantiate the existence of trees on the spot at time of acquisition of land by stating that he was not in position to produce any document with respect to that and further he did not know as to whether at the time of acquisition, trees were standing on the land or not. 12. Learned counsel for the land owners/appellants has submitted that the date appended below the signatures of Patwari and Kanungo, who had prepared the list of trees Ext.PW2/A, it is evident that the said list was prepared on 29 th January, 1982 and names of owners and corresponding khasra numbers, mentioned in this list, are the same which have been acquired by the respondents/State for construction of the road and valuation thereof is in Ext.PW5/A. 13. As discussed above, PW2 had not visited the spot at the time of preparation of the list and this list of trees is not there in the proceedings of the award No.8 of 2008 and according to PW2, the same is lying in the old lapsed file. As pointed out by learned counsel for the land owners, list Ext.PW2/A was prepared in the year 1982, whereas the acquisition proceedings, by which compensation has been awarded, were initiated in the year 2006 and completed in the year 2008. There is nothing on record to substantiate the existence of trees on the spot at the time of initiation of acquisition proceedings in the year 2006. The evaluation Ext.PW5/A, as per PW5, was carried out on 25 th February, 2012. In the list Ext.PW2/A, there are five khasra numbers, whereas in the evaluation report Ext.PW5/A, there are only four khasra numbers. In list Ext.PW2/A, against khasra No.210/111, earlier 37 trees were shown which were after cutting were shown as 7 trees of three classes, whereas in Ext.PW5/A, against this khasra number, seven number of trees of two classes only i.e. third and fourth class, have been reflected. In list Ext.PW2/A, against khasra No.210/111, earlier 37 trees were shown which were after cutting were shown as 7 trees of three classes, whereas in Ext.PW5/A, against this khasra number, seven number of trees of two classes only i.e. third and fourth class, have been reflected. Khasra No.211/111 is missing in Ext.PW5/A. In list Ext.PW2/A, against khasra No.205/179, firstly 26 trees were shown, which were, after cutting, shown as two in number. Against khasra No.115 in Ext.PW2/A, 12 trees of three classes have been reflected, whereas in Ext.PW5/A, 12 trees of two classes only have been reflected. Similarly, against khasra No.208/181, 5 trees of three classes have been shown in Ext.PW2/A, whereas in Ext.PW5/A, 5 trees of two classes only have been evaluated. The valuation has been done in the year 2012. There are discrepancies in number of trees and classes of trees mentioned in Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW5/A. Moreover, in the list Ext.PW2/A, which was prepared in 1982, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the same trees were also standing on the said land in the year 2006. Learned counsel for the land owners has submitted that those lists were prepared in the year 1982, but at the time of construction of the road, those trees were felled and removed from the spot. Interestingly, PW5 has stated that he has evaluated the trees standing on the spot in the year 2012. According to land owners, the land was constructed in the year 1986 and acquired in the year 2006. When the trees were felled in the year 1986, then it is beyond imagination to believe that evaluation of those trees on the spot was conducted by PW5 along with other officials in the year 2012. Therefore, the evidence with respect to the claim for these trees standing on the acquired land is not substantiated by cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, in my opinion the claim of the land owners for damages on account of trees standing on the acquired land is not tenable and thus rejected. 14. It is admitted fact that there is no exemplar transaction available, pertaining to one year period prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case. Therefore, in my opinion the claim of the land owners for damages on account of trees standing on the acquired land is not tenable and thus rejected. 14. It is admitted fact that there is no exemplar transaction available, pertaining to one year period prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case. Land Acquisition Collector has relied upon one year average value of adjoining village Dhagida for determining the compensation, which has been further relied upon by the Reference Court for determining the uniform rate. There is not even an iota of evidence on record indicating similarity of nature and potentiality of land situated in village Dadhog and village Dhagida. On the contrary, RW1 Jagat Singh (J.E.), in his crossexamination has admitted the suggestion that village Dhagida is situated in a gorge, at a distance of 4 kilometer from JamtaRajban Road. Though, he has also stated that the said village is situated in the same circle, however the fact remains that as per his admission, village Dhagida is not situated in the alignment of JamtaRajban Road, for which land of village Dadhog has been acquired. For evidence on record land of village Dhagida is not comparable with land in village Dadhog. 15. The sale deeds Ext.PW3/A and Ext.PX, relied upon by the land owners, are of dates 23 rd June, 2006 and 28 th October, 2006, respectively. In these sale deeds, value of land becomes to be ?4,00,000/ and ?3,00,000/ per bigha. In sale deed Ext.PW3/A, only 3 biawa of land is involved, whereas in sale deed Ext.PX, 10 biswa of land is involved. In sale deed Ext.PW3/A, for smaller chunk of land, value of land is higher i.e. ?4,00,000/ per bigha, whereas in sale deed Ext.PX, for bigger chunk of land, value of land is ?3,00,000/ per bigha. 16. Sale deed Ext.PW3/A pertains to village Dadhog, whereas sale deed Ext.PX is of village Jamta. In these facts, even if it is considered that sale deed Ext.PW3/A might have been executed for proving higher value of land as land transferred in this transaction is very small i.e. 3 biswa and it is postnotification under Section 4 of the Act, then also another sale deed of another considerable big chunk of different village Jamta is available. 17. 17. PW4 Ramesh Kumar, in his examinationin chief has categorically stated that the acquired land is equivalent in production and utility to the land of village Jamta and Jetak. The said fact has not been disputed either in crossexamination by the respondents/State or by leading any evidence contrary to that. 18. Considering the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Chandrashekars case (supra), in absence of unavailability of the exemplar transactions within one year prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, exemplar transactions available for period subsequent to Section 4 of the Act, can be taken into consideration, but subject to suitable deduction therein. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has approved 10% deduction for sale deeds pertaining to one year period after the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deed Ext.PX, in present case, is within one year from the date of notification, wherein land has been transferred for value of ?3,00,000/ per bigha. 19. The land owners have also prayed for damages from the date of taking of possession of the land since April, 1986, for construction of road. 20. PW4 Ramesh Kumar, in his examinationin chief, vide affidavit Ext.PW4/A, has categorically stated that for construction of the road, respondents/State had taken possession of the land in April, 1986. In first line of cross examination, he has again reiterated the same fact. The said fact has not been disputed by the respondents/State, rather it has been suggested to this witness that in the year 1986, Pine View Resort and Green View Resort were not existing on the spot, which implies that taking of possession in the year 1986 has not been disputed, rather it has been admitted by the State. It appears from the trend of cross examination that acquisition process was initiated in 1986 also, as there is a suggestion to this witness, which has been admitted by this witness that in the year 1986, value of land for acquisition was determined on the basis of valuation report of the Patwari. Therefore, it stands established on record that the acquired land was taken into possession by the respondents/State for construction of road in April, 1986, whereas the acquisition process has been completed on 20 th June, 2008 in pursuance to the notification dated 23 rd February, 2006 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, it stands established on record that the acquired land was taken into possession by the respondents/State for construction of road in April, 1986, whereas the acquisition process has been completed on 20 th June, 2008 in pursuance to the notification dated 23 rd February, 2006 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, in terms of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in R.L. Jain, Tahera Khotoon and Balwan Singhs cases (supra), land owners are entitled for damages as addition interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the value of land from the date of possession till notification issued by respondent/State under Section 4 of the Act i.e. from 1.4.1986 to 23.2.2006. 21. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to make deduction of 10% in the value of land, arrived at on the basis of sale deed Ext.PX, to determine the value of compensation payable to the land owners after deduction of 10% therein, value of land is determined at the rate of ?2,70,000/ per bigha. Accordingly, the land owners/appellants are held entitled for compensation at the rate of ?2,70,000/ per bigha along with all statutory benefits available to them in accordance with law and in addition thereto, the land owners shall also be entitled for damages of additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on value of land for the period between the date of dispossession and date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, i.e. from 1 st April, 1986 to 26 th February,2006 in terms of pronouncement of the Apex Court referred supra. 22. All these appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. Respondents are directed to calculate the amount and deposit the same in the Registry of this Court on or before 31 st July, 2019.