JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. 1. Since all the these appeals are the offshoots of award relating to Land situated in village Kuhal Katal, Post Office and Sub-Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P., which was acquired, through notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) for construction of Kuhal-Katal road, the same are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the appellant(s)/State against common award, dated 18.03.2017, passed in Land References No. 20/4 to 24/4 of 2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (camp at Bilaspur) (for short “the Reference Court below”), with a prayer to set-aside the impugned award. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant appeals, in brief, are that Government of Himachal Pradesh published Notification, dated 27.08.2009, under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land for the construction of Tepra-Kuhal Katal-Dabour road (for short “the acquired land”) in village Kuhal Katal, P.O. Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P., and accordingly the land was acquired. Subsequently, notification, dated 18.06.2010, was issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereby objections were invited from the landowners. Ultimately, following the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, demarcation of the acquired land was carried out and the Land Acquisition Collector, after considering the available material as well as the objections, passed award, dated 09.12.2011, whereby market value of the land was assessed as under: S. No. Class of land Rate per bigha 1. Kuhli Awwal Rs.8,50,000/- 2. Kuhli Dom Rs.7,31,000/- 3. Anderli Awwal Rs.6,29,000/- 4. Anderli Doam Rs.5,27,000/- 5. Baharli Awwal Rs.4,25,000/- 6. Baharli Doam Rs.2,04,000/- 7. Banzar and Khadyetar Rs.1,02,000/- 4. The petitioners/claimants (respondents herein)were paid compensation on the aforesaid rates, which was received by them under protest and they preferred petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, which were further referred to the learned Reference Court below. 5. The learned Reference Court below, after considering all the material, passed the impugned award, as mentioned hereinabove, whereby the petitioners/claimants were held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha of the acquired land, irrespective of the classification or category of the land, alongwith interest and other statutory benefits. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals with a prayer that the impugned awards be set-aside. 7. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals with a prayer that the impugned awards be set-aside. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has contended that Reference Court has fallen into error by enhancing the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all categories of the acquired land. He further contended that while awarding the compensation at the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha, the learned Reference court did not allow the standard deduction as being a rural connectivity road constructed for the benefit of the land owners, the standard deduction between 33-53% was required to be made from the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha. 8. Conversely, it is contended on behalf of the claimants that since the land of the claimant was acquired for the same purpose, as such, the Reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization. It is further contended that the purpose of acquisition of the land was construction of a road, as such, no deduction was permissible. 9. It is not in dispute that the land of the claimants was acquired for the same purpose, i.e., for the construction of Tepra-Kuhal Katal-Dabour road in village Kuhal Katal, Post Office Namhol, District Bilaspur. It is well settled principle of law that if entire land is acquired for the same purpose, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization. Reference in this regard can be made to General Manager, NHPC & another vs. Rattan Dass & others, 2018 (2) SLC 739, relevant paras whereof, for the sake of ready reference are extracted hereunder: "8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. This aspect of the case has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on 22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under: "26. This aspect of the case has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on 22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under: "26. It is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 27. The Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. 28. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others, 2005 (12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land. 29. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 (9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. 30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing Board vs. Ram Lal & Ors., 2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs. & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 31. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs Dilla Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates." 10. Vs Dilla Ram, Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates." 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the land of the claimant was acquired for the same purpose, that is for construction of Tepra-Kuhal Katal-Dabour road, therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land at the uniform rate, regardless of its categorization, as such the learned Reference Court had rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all categories of the acquired land. 11. The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that standard deduction was required to be made from the flat rate of Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha, is devoid of any merits. This Court in number of judgments has consistently taken a view that the deduction will not be permissible where the purpose of acquisition of land is for the construction of road, rail track or any other purpose relatable to the public at large, without any component of profit or loss. 12. Reference can be made to 2014 (3) SLC 1356 titled as G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh & others as under:- “10. Even previously in judgments reported, in 1997 (2) SLC 229 and 1998 (2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC (1) SC, it has been mandated that when the purpose of acquisition is common, the award of compensation at a uniform rate for different classification/categories of land, is, tenable. Hence, it can be forthrightly concluded, that, the award of a uniform rate of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge Una for different lands bearing different classifications/categories, is, not legally infirm, especially when on acquisition they acquire a uniform potentiality. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has concerted, to also espouse before this Court, that even though, reliance upon Ex. PW1/C by the learned Court below, is not misplaced, in as much, as it fulfilled the relevant enshrined legal parameter for its invocation/applicability, in as much, as (i) it being proximate to the land subjected to acquisition, as also (ii) its execution being contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. PW1/C by the learned Court below, is not misplaced, in as much, as it fulfilled the relevant enshrined legal parameter for its invocation/applicability, in as much, as (i) it being proximate to the land subjected to acquisition, as also (ii) its execution being contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Nonetheless, he has canvassed that (i) given the largeness or expanse and immensity/immenseness of size of the land subjected to acquisition vis-à-vis the area of the land sold/ comprised in Ex.PW 1/C, the market value of the land comprised in Ex.PW1/C could not have been, as a whole applied to the entire land subjected to the acquisition, unless, deductions for developmental costs as warranted and mandated by the decisions relied upon by him had been made/accorded. Since, the learned Additional District Judge, Una omitted to give/make deductions from the total compensation arrived at/worked out on the basis of the value of the land sold/comprised in Ex.PW1/C, whereas, he was enjoined to do so, he has committed a grave legal error necessitating interference by this Court. 12. While proceeding to gauge the sinew of the above contention canvassed before this Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that the judgments cited in support of the above view espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable, vis-à-vis, the facts at hand, hence, in the humble view of this Court, not reliable as (a) all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, concert to marshal the view, of, deductions from the lump sum compensation assessed qua a large tract of land on the score of market value of a small/minimal piece of land being made. In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations, is that, for the market value of small a tract of land to be comprising an admissible parameter, for, on its strength working out the compensation for a large tract of land, it is, imperative that deductions towards development costs is made. However, distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was made for the development of sites for allotment for housing purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. However, distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was made for the development of sites for allotment for housing purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. Therefore, given the purpose for which the land was acquired, in, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, deductions were enjoined to be imperative or necessary, as, the entity for whom the land was brought under acquisition, would be entailed/obliged, to, make the land fit for the purpose for which it was acquired, in as much, as, such an entity concomitantly being driven to incur exorbitant expenses, towards its development for rendering it fit for use. As such, given the magnified increase in the scale of economies or given the ultimate manifold increase, in, the scale of economies or such incurring of exorbitant expenses on development, hence, acquiring the capacity to proportionately reduce their profit, as such, rendering the project for which the land was acquired financially viable, or, to obviate the losses accruing from the steep rates of compensation as may be awarded that deductions were permitted. In other words, deduction from compensation mandated to not render the venture and the purpose for which the land was acquired, in the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, to be financially un-whole some, as well as, unviable. More so, when the land is acquired for State holdings, building/housing agency(ies) or the agencies carrying out and engaged in profiteering work. However, in contra distinction, to the facts of the judgments, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, the land has been subjected to acquisition, for the purpose of construction of a railway track. In the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway track, it has assumed the role of doing so, as, a welfare measure and not as a profiteering measure. The railway track would continue to be owned by the appellant, in distinction to the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, where the agency for whom the land was subjected to acquisition, would on developing the land, sell it further or gain profit. The railway track would continue to be owned by the appellant, in distinction to the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, where the agency for whom the land was subjected to acquisition, would on developing the land, sell it further or gain profit. (b) The appellant has omitted to adduce cogent evidence on record displaying the fact that each of the land holder, whose land was subjected to acquisition was holding a vast expanse of land. Omission to adduce into evidence such proof demonstrative of each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition, owing a wide expanse or a large sized holding, vis-à-vis, the sale transaction comprised in Ex. PW1/C, a firm conclusion can be formed, that, the size of the holding or the size of the land of the each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition was more or less equal to or not disproportionately larger in size to the area of the land comprised in Ex.PW1/C. Hence, there was no jurisdictional error, on the part of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in not affording deduction, given the smallness in size of the land comprised, in, Ex.PW1/C, vis-à-vis, the lands of each of the individual land owners, whose land was subjected to acquisition. Besides, it has also not been cogently proved by the appellant that any part of the land owned by each of the land owners and subjected to acquisition did not bear potentiality nor would have commanded a market value, lesser than the value earned by the expanse of land comprised in Ex.PW1/C. It appears, that, given the proximity of the acquired land, as deposed by PW-4 Gulzar Singh and PW3 Gurbachan Singh, to educational institution, temple and abadi of the villagers it enjoyed or commanded immense market value. Therefore, when each parcel of the land subjected to acquisition bore a market value, equivalent to the land subjected to acquisition, hence, there was, no, legal error committed by the learned Additional District Judge in relying upon for the market value depicted, in, Ex.PW1/C and applying it to the entire tracts of the land subjected to acquisition even, when it was smaller in size vis-à-vis the land subjected to the acquisition.” 13. Similar, reiteration can be found in Jaswant Singh & others vs. State of H.P.& others, 2018 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1493. Similar, reiteration can be found in Jaswant Singh & others vs. State of H.P.& others, 2018 (3) Shimla Law Cases 1493. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is as under: “4. Consequently, bearing in mind, the afore expostulation of law, occurring in paragraph No. 10 to 14 of the verdict of this Court, rendered in Gulzar Singh’s case (supra), reiteratedly this Court further concludes (a) qua when the purpose, of, acquisition, is, for construction a road, and, when hence the meteing of deductions, vis-a- viz, compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court, on anvil, of, the apposite sale exemplar, is rather validly meteable, (b) only for covering the apt exorbitant costs, accruable for developing the acquired lands, for theirs ultimately rearing hence handsome profits, vis-à- vis, the authority, wherefrom whom, the acquisition is made, (c) thereupon the principle of meteing of deductions, when rather is squarely attracted and applicable, vis-à-vis, construction(s), of, road, (d) thereupon hence, the meteing of deduction by the learned reference court, vis-à-vis, compensation amount, as assessed in respect, of, the lands of the landowners/appellants herein, on anvil, of, the sale exemplar borne in Ex.PB, rather, is, rendered legally frail.” 14. In Nelson Fernandes & others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & others, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 447, while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a railway line, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible, as there was no question of any development thereof. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is as under: “30. … … … … that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise.” 15. Thus, the contention of learned Deputy Advocate General cannot be upheld for the reasons firstly, that no deduction will be permissible keeping in view the purpose of acquisition involved in the instant appeals, secondly, every inch of acquired land was put to the same use for which it was acquired. 16. The learned Reference Court has awarded Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all categories of land. Further, the land owners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. 16. The learned Reference Court has awarded Rs.8,50,000/- per bigha for all categories of land. Further, the land owners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove and also considering the above stated settled principles of law, no interference is required in the impugned award, dated 18.03.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (camp at Bilaspur). 17. The instant appeals, being devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand(s) disposed of.