JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through an award made by the learned Reference Court, upon, land Petition No. 3FTC/4 of 2009 alongwith connected land Petitions, decided on 31.5.2011, the land owners became awarded compensation amount, vis-a-vis, acquired lands, compensation amount whereof became quantified in a sum of Rs.30,000/- per biswa, and, thereon(s) became levied, apposite thereto statutory benefits. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved therefrom, and, has hence thereagainst instituted the instant appeal before this Court.

2. The land of the respondents became acquired for construction of Bill Haripur road. The acquired land though carried contra-distinct classifications, in the revenue record concerned, (i) yet the learned reference Court upon bearing in mind, the market value, of, land categorized as Katual land, market value whereof became quantified in a sum of Rs.30,000/-, per biswa, also assessed in tandem therewith, a similar thereto market value, vis-a-vis, contradistinct therewith classifications and categories of acquired land. Though the afore uniformity or parity of market value, as becomes, drawn by the learned Reference Court, vis-avis, all categories or classifications of lands, as become put to acquisition, does not call for any interference, becoming made qua therewith (i) as a catena of judgments pronounced by the Courts of law, do validate, the underlying therewith principle, (ii) principle whereof enunciates that upon the purpose of acquisition, being similar, thereupon the awardings, of, alike sum(s) of compensation, being imperative, vis-a-vis, all classifications or categories of acquired lands, (iii) as, upon acquisition the relevant classification or categorization of lands, become rendered insignificant or wholly irrelevant, in, making assessment(s) of compensation qua therewith.

3. However, the acid contest which erupts inter-se the litigants hereat, is confined to the legality, of, assessment through the impugned award, of, compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- per biswas, vis-a-vis, the lands as become subjected to acquisition.

4. The best evidence for determining the market value of the land concerned, is, comprised in sale exemplars, rather satiating, the judicially pronounced tests, in as much as (a) the apposite sale exemplar, holding proximity in time angle, in as much, as its’ bearing proximity, vis-a-vis, issuance, of, the apposite notification under Section 4, of, the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) (b) its satisfying the further principle of proximity in location angle, as may become pronounced, upon, the lands borne in the apposite sale exemplar, becoming pronounced through adduction, of, cogent evidence, to be located in proximity, to the lands put to the acquisition.

5. Though the appellants herein through RW-1 (Gian Chand) had produced dasti Khaka Ex. RW-1/A, of, Jabal Jamrot, and, who, has also stated that the Mohal whereon, the acquired lands are located, in as much, as, village Sujni adjoining village Jabal Jamrot, and, (i) further stated that since no sale transaction in village Sujni, within 1.5.2007 to 30.4.2008, hence, within the period whereat the notification under Section 4 of the Act, became issued, rather occurred, (ii) thereupon, the average price of lands in Jabal Jamrot rather when it adjoins village Sujni, price whereof becomes depicted in Ex. RW-1/B, obviously is argued to become, the relevant parameter for adjudging compensation. The afore made evidence of RW-1, becomes enjoined to be juxtaposed, vis-a-vis, a certified copy of an award made, on, 24.11.2009, certified copy whereof is carried in Ex. PW-1/ B. The afore award was made, vis-a-vis, lands categorized, as, Katual land, lands whereof are located in village Jabal Jamrot, Mohal whereof, undisputedly adjoins Mohal Sujni, whereat the acquired land are situated.

6. After, tendering into evidence of Ex. PW-1/B by PW-1 (Pushpinder Kumar), exhibit whereof is certified copy of awar