P. K. Musahary, J.:- 1. This appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the judgment dated 6.10.2010 rendered by the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.2) in case No. Misc. (LA)26/2005 declaring that the respondent no. 1 is entitled to Rs. 1 (one) lac per kani based on the proximate date of sale instances as well as from the guess-work along with 30% solatium over the valuation of the said land as per provision of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after re­ferred to as the 'LAAct') and also declaring that there shall be increase @12% on the market value as provided under Section 23 (1-A) of the LA Act from the date of notifi­cation till the date of award and also interest @ 9% per annum under Section 28 of the LA Act from the date of taking over posses­sion for a period of one year and 15% interest per annum till the date of enhanced amount of compensation i.e. the amount awarded. 2. Briefly stated, facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the land measuring 1.88 acres covered under Khatian No.355/1 com­prising C.S.plot No.725 of Mauza Narshinghar. under Gandhigram T.K of Sadar Sub-Division was acquired by the Land Acquisi­tion Collector on requisition made by the Boarder Security Force Authorities for the construction of Bhagalpur B.O.P. BSF under Sadar Sub-Division, in West Tripura vide notification No.F 9(24).REV/Acq/6/201 dated 01.10.2001 under Section 4 of the L.A.Act and subsequent declaration vide No. F/9/(24) REV/ACQ/6/201 dated 7.12.2001 under Section 6 of the Act whereunder the L.A. Collector assessed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.9500/- per kani and also assessed 30 % solitium and 12% additional interest and Rs. 10,000/- for trees i.e. in total an amount of Rs.71,349/- as compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1. 3. Being dis-satisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid award of compensation the claimant respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge (hereinafter in short L. A. Judge) for determi­nation of just compensation. The Land Ac­quisition Collector concerned referred the matter to the learned L.A.Judge vide im­pugned judgement and order dated 6.10.2010 enhencing the value of the land as stated earlier. 4. I have heard Mr. The Land Ac­quisition Collector concerned referred the matter to the learned L.A.Judge vide im­pugned judgement and order dated 6.10.2010 enhencing the value of the land as stated earlier. 4. I have heard Mr. P K Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K N Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1. I have also perused the record as made available at the time of hear­ing. 5. Mr. P K Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding of the learned L.A.Judge enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.9500/- per kani to Rs. 1 (one) lac per kani are based on mere sur­mise and conjecture and against the evidence on record inasmuch as the sale deeds as pro­duced by the claimant-respondent No. 1 are not pertaining to land of similar nature and character and many of the documents are not contemporaneous on the basis of which cor­rect assessment could not be made and just compensation cannot be awarded. Moroever, the land as referred to in the sale deeds as produced by the claimant respondent No. 1 are not situated near the land under acquisition but inspite of that the learned L.A.Judge came to conclusion that there is no alternative but to hold that the market value of the land might be at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per kani which is a mere guesswork based on no reality and as such the impugned judgment awarding the compensation is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Acharjee, appearing for the claimant respond­ent No. 1 submits that the learned L. A. Judge failed to assess the value of the acquired land on the basis of the value of land purchased by Smti Tapasi Devnath which is situated near the acquired land of same status/class ie. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Acharjee, appearing for the claimant respond­ent No. 1 submits that the learned L. A. Judge failed to assess the value of the acquired land on the basis of the value of land purchased by Smti Tapasi Devnath which is situated near the acquired land of same status/class ie. 'bastu' class of land sold by Sri Rakhal Chandra Dey and others, which is 'tilla' class of land, whereas the acquired land is more valuable being the bastu class of land but the learned L. A.Collector wrongly assessed the market value of the acquired land at an ab­normally lower rate and the learned L. A. Judge failed to take notice that the acquired land situates near the main PWD road having pro­spective market value although fresh docu­mentary and oral evidence was adduced by the claimant in support of such valuation of the acquired land. Had the learned L.A. Judge applied the judicial mind and consid­ered all the relevant points, the value of the land should have been enhanced to Rs.4 lacs per kani as the just compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. The com­pensation awarded at the rate of Rs.l lac per kani is contrary to the evidence on record and the same is liable to be set aside en­hancing the rate of the acquired land to Rs,4 lacs per kani. He submits that the claimant/respondent No. 1 has filed cross objection which is registered as C.O.(FA)6/2011 claiming enhancement of the valuation of the land to Rs. 4 lacs per kani relying on con­temporaneous documents. 7. The Land Acquisition Collector, as re­spondent no. 1 in the Misc. L. A.26/2005, filed counter before the learned L.A.Judge, stat­ing amongst other, that Amin of the collectorate collected 6(six) sale deed instances for as­sessment of valuation of the land under refer­ence which are quoted below: SI. No. & name of Mouza Plot No. Classifica­tion of land Deed No. & date Value of land Distance of the land from prop­osed acquired land 1 . Narsinghar 448,415 Chara Tilla 0.44, 1-434 17.5.2000 Rs. 10,000/-Rs. 9091/p.k. 308 Mtrs. 2. Narsinghar 783, 786, 787 Bastu Chara 0.35. 1-706 18.1.2000 Rs. 9000/-Rs. 10266/-p.k. 420 Mtrs. 3. Narsinghar 501,499, Nal 2904, 3900, 404,515,516, 526, 537 2.87. 1-706 22.1.2001 Rs. 50000/-Rs. 6969/- pk. 124 Mtrs. 4. Narsinghar 2196/p Tilla 0.04, 1-5528 18.2.02 Rs. 400000/-p.k. 948 Mtrs. Near market area 5. Narsinghar 448,415 Chara Tilla 0.44, 1-434 17.5.2000 Rs. 10,000/-Rs. 9091/p.k. 308 Mtrs. 2. Narsinghar 783, 786, 787 Bastu Chara 0.35. 1-706 18.1.2000 Rs. 9000/-Rs. 10266/-p.k. 420 Mtrs. 3. Narsinghar 501,499, Nal 2904, 3900, 404,515,516, 526, 537 2.87. 1-706 22.1.2001 Rs. 50000/-Rs. 6969/- pk. 124 Mtrs. 4. Narsinghar 2196/p Tilla 0.04, 1-5528 18.2.02 Rs. 400000/-p.k. 948 Mtrs. Near market area 5. Narsinghar 2196 Tilla 0.06 1-5527 18.2.02 Rs. 60000/-Rs. 400000/-p.k. 948 Mtrs. Near market area 6. Narsinghar 2400 Bastu 0.72 1-5467 18.2.02 Rs. 120000/-Rs. 400000/-p.k. 876 Mtrs. 8. Amongst the above six sale instances produced and relied upon by the respondent No. 1 -claimant, one sale deed was executed between Shantibushan Deb and Jitu Bardhan on 18.6.06 and another sale deed was ex­ecuted between Anil Ch.Deb and Pintu Kr. Choudhury on 25.5.2007. The other 4(four) sale deeds were executed in the year 2000. From these sale instances, as submitted by the respondent No. 1/claimant, it is found that the value of the land at the relevant point of time was between Rs. 2,66,000/- and Rs. 2,99,990/- per kani. Rs. 2,66,000/- per kani is the minimum and around Rs.4 lacs is the maximum rate as per assessment made by the L.A.Collector. The claimant is insist­ing on assessment of the value of the land at the maximum rate i.e. Rs.4 lacs per kani in respect of the acquired land. 9. The claim of the respondent No. 1 for assessment of the value of the land at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per kani is to be considered on the basis of principle laid down by the Apex Court. The appropriate principle has been laid down in Ravinder Narain &Anr. Vs. Un­ion of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 , wherein it is held that the first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act and the value of the potentiality of the land is to be determined on the basis of such materi­als as are available without indulgence and fits of imagination. However, it is observed therein that there is always some amount of guesswork while determining the potentiality of the land. However, it is observed therein that there is always some amount of guesswork while determining the potentiality of the land. For determination of potentiality, first of all, the Court has to consider and find out whether the land of sale instances and the land under acquisition situate at the same place. The respondent L.A. Collector, in the present case, attempted to show that the land under acquisition near the place of sale in­stances, although they fall within the same Mauza, are located at different "sheet" of the Mauza. The land under the sale instances fall under or within market area whereas the land under acquisition is at a distant place and do not situate within the market place, rather it is situated near the Bangladesh Bor­der where valuation of the land is far less. The assessment note was prepared by the L.A. Collector on the basis of six sale deed instances corresponding to sale deeds which were executed between 2000- 2002. Three of the sale deeds executed in 2000-2001 have mentioned the valuation of the land below Rs. 10,000/- per kani while other three sale deeds, all dated 18.2.2002, have mentioned valuation of the lands at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per kani with further mention that they are near the market area. The L.A.Collector refused to accept the value of the land at Rs.4 lacs per kani in respect of the land under acquisition because the same is not situated near the said lands cov­ered by sale deed instances which situate near the market place. 10. In order to appreciate the stand of the appellant, an extract of the assessment note pertaining to those six sale deed instances, is quoted below: SI. No. & name of Mouza Plot No. Classification of land Area (in Acres) Deed No. & date Value of land Distance of the land from prop­osed acquired land 1. Narsingharh 2400 Jote Bastu 12 sataks 1-5467 17.6.2000 Rs. 1,20,000/-Tapasee Deb-nath (vendee) 874 metres Near market area 2. Narsingarh 2691 Jote 499 Jote Tilla 0.18 (3 gondas) 1-5528 19.6.2000 Rs.40,000/-Paritosh Ranjan Dutta 948 metres Near market area 3. Narsingarh Dag No. 2654 26502196 Jote Hill rayati Chara Tilla 0.18 (3 gondas) 1-5527 19.6.2000 Rs. 60,000/-Pranab Das 948 metres Near market area 4. Narsingarh Dag No. 878/417/878/4157/880/4191 Jote Charra 60 acrs 1-3776 25.5.2009 Rs. 60,000/-Anil Ch. Deb 5. Narsingarh 2691 Jote 499 Jote Tilla 0.18 (3 gondas) 1-5528 19.6.2000 Rs.40,000/-Paritosh Ranjan Dutta 948 metres Near market area 3. Narsingarh Dag No. 2654 26502196 Jote Hill rayati Chara Tilla 0.18 (3 gondas) 1-5527 19.6.2000 Rs. 60,000/-Pranab Das 948 metres Near market area 4. Narsingarh Dag No. 878/417/878/4157/880/4191 Jote Charra 60 acrs 1-3776 25.5.2009 Rs. 60,000/-Anil Ch. Deb 5. Narsingarh Dag No. 913(old) 866/4129 (New) Jote Charra Tilla 10 acres 1-3707 18.3.2006 Rs. 50,000/- Shanti Busan Deb 6. Narsingarh Dag No. 841,842 & 843 Ejmali Rayati, jote tilla (charra) 17½ gonads 1-536 18.1.2000 Rs. 9,000/- Gopal Ch. Choudhury 11. The respondent-claimant No. 1 also cited six sale deed instances to establish his claim for compensation. The same has been worked out and quoted as under: SI. No. & name of Mouza Plot No. Classification of land Area (in Acres) Deed No. & date Value of land Distance of the land from proposed acquired land 1 . Narsingharh 448, 415 Chara Tilla 0.44 1-434 17.5.2000 Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 9,091/pk 308 Mtrs. 2. Narsingarh 783, 786, 787 Bastu Chara 0.35 1-536 18.1.2000 Rs.9,000/- Rs. 10,266/- p.k. 420 Mtrs. 3. Narsingarh 501, 499 Nal 2904, 3900, 404, 515,516, 526, 537 Nal Chara Tilla 2.87 1-706 22.1.2011 Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 6,969/-pk. 124 Mtrs. 4. Narsi ngarh 2196/p Tilla 0.04 1-5528 18.2.2002 Rs. 4,00,000/- p.k. 948 Mtrs. Near market area 5. Narsingarh 2196 Tilla 0.06 1-5527 18.2.2002 Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- p.k. 948 Mtrs. Near market area 6. Narsingarh 2400 Bastu 72 1-5467 18.2.2002 Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 4,00,000/- p.k. 876 Mtrs. 12. The claim for higher rate of compensation by the claimant- respondent No. 1 at Rs.4 lacs per kani is based on market value of the lands situated near the acquired land, To justify the claim the respondent claimant relied on five sale deeds which are on record. The location and valuation of the acquired land has been compared with the lands described in the aforesaid sale deeds and it was stated that the sale deeds referred to lands which are situated in another sheet of Mauza Narsinghar and they are quite far away from the acquired land and the transaction of all the sale deeds took place after the issuance of notification of the acquired lands. The first deed is dated 19.6.2000 executed between Sri P. Das as vendee and Rakhal Chandra Dey and two others as vendors in respect of 0.18 decimal (3 gondas) of jote right 'tilla' class of land which was sold at Rs.60,000/-. The second sale deed was executed be­tween Paritosh Ranjan Dutta and two others on 19.6.2000 as vendees and Shri Rakhal Ch. Dey and two others as vendors in re­spect of 0.18 decimal (3 ganda) 'tilla' lands which was sold at Rs.40,000/-. The third sale deed was executed between Sri Anil Ch. Deb as vendee and Sri Pintu Kr.Choudhury as vendor in respect of 69 decimal chara 'tilla' (hillock) class of land at Rs.60,000/-. The fourth sale deed was executed be­tween Sri Santi Bhusan Deb and another as vendees and Sri Jitu Bardhan as vendor on 25.5.2007 in respect of land measuring 10 satakat Rs.50,000/-. The fifth sale deed was executed between Sri Gopal Chandra Choudhury and two oth­ers as vendees and Sri Gobinda Ch. Chou­dhury as vendor in respect of land measuring 17½ gandas of jote chara land at Rs.9000/- on 18.1.2000. The sixth sale deed was executed between Smti Tapasi Debnath as vendee and Sri Samarendra Chakraborty on 17.6.2000 as vendor in respect of bastu jote land measuring 12 satak at Rs. 1,20,000/-. The lands mentioned in the above sale deeds situate at T K Gandhigram under Mauza Narsinghar, Pargana Agartala under Airport Police Station within the Sub-Regis­try office, Sadar. 13. The valuation of the land reflected in the sale instances as relied upon by the respondent/claimant has been rejected on the ground that SI. No. 1,2, and 3 are lands situ­ated near the market place and the land un­der acquisition is not situated near the market place. SI No.4 & 5 relate to sale deed executed in the year 2006-07 respectively and as such the valuation of the land as mentioned in the sale deed instances cannot be made applicable to the land under acquisition. Al­though the sixth transaction took place on 18.1.2000, according to the L.A .Collector, the same is not acceptable as the said land situate at a distant place from the market area Broadly speaking the L. A. Collector determined the valuation of the land taking into consideration the location and distance from the market area/place. Al­though the sixth transaction took place on 18.1.2000, according to the L.A .Collector, the same is not acceptable as the said land situate at a distant place from the market area Broadly speaking the L. A. Collector determined the valuation of the land taking into consideration the location and distance from the market area/place. The lands which situ­ate near the market place are given more valu­ation than the lands situated beyond the mar­ket area or at a distant place from the market area. The valuation of the land in question has been fixed at a lower rate as it is situated out­side the market area. The learned L. A. Judge adopted the similar consideration in fixing the value of the acquired land although valuation has been assessed as per the rate fixed by the L. A. Collector. 14. This Court is called upon to examine whether the learned L. A. Judge followed the correct principle in determining the valuation of the land in question. For answering this question several factors are to be considered. 15. The land in question is situated outside the market area as shown by the Rev­enue Authority. At the same time it is shown that it is located in the same Mauza under Airport Police Station. The locality is found to be within a prime area although it is not near the market place. Generally a place near the Airport or within the greater area of the Airport is considered to be prime locality for the reason that in such area there is possibil­ity of establishment of important institutions of the Govt. and private organisations like schools, hospitals, industries, business set up etc. It may be noted that the Capital Agartala township, in the past few years, has started extending towards the Airport. No evidence has been led by the parties in this regard but definitely this Court can take judicial notice that even the permanent Bench of this Court has been established and now functioning in the new building located near the road to­wards Airport. The land in question is not near the new High Court building but looking at the rapid extension of the township, one can make a guesswork on the increasing valua­tion of the land under the Airport Police Sta­tion. The present rate of growth and expan­sion of Agartala township proves the potenti­ality of the entire area under the airport po­lice station. The land in question is not near the new High Court building but looking at the rapid extension of the township, one can make a guesswork on the increasing valua­tion of the land under the Airport Police Sta­tion. The present rate of growth and expan­sion of Agartala township proves the potenti­ality of the entire area under the airport po­lice station. One can easily understand that the area is being urbanised and commercial­ised. Once it is found that there is scope for urbanisation and commerciali-sation in the area concerned, one has to take it into con­sideration for determination of the valuation of the land. Unfortunately, the L. A. Collector as well as the L. A. Judge have failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter and committed error in fixing the valuation of the land in question commensurate with the aforesaid pace of development and potenti­ality of the land in the said area. In my considered view Court should not turn its blind eye on the potentiality of the land which is being urbanised and commercialised. Al­though no evidence in this regard has been adduced by the claimant, it is difficult to agree that a land situated at the Bangladesh Border has much less potentiality without taking into consideration the other relevant factors like expansion/extension of the capital township and growth of other commercial establish­ments in the said area in this age of global­isation and rapid international trade and com­mercial activism. In fact, there is a common trend of extensive commercial and business activities along the international border areas for which the Govt. of India has given due importance on improvement of communica­tion network along the Bangladesh Border, hi my opinion, LA Collector and the learned L. A. Judge have lost sight of all these impor­tant factors while fixing the valuation of the acquired land. 16, There is no evidence on record that the potentiality of the land under acquisition is much less than the valuation of the land mentioned in the Sale Deed instances on whicfrthe L. A. Collector relied upon. There is also no evidence on the possibility of expansion of the market area or expansion of Agartala township to the land under acquisi­tion for coming to a definite conclusion that the potentiality of the land would not enhance in the near future. There is also no evidence on the possibility of expansion of the market area or expansion of Agartala township to the land under acquisi­tion for coming to a definite conclusion that the potentiality of the land would not enhance in the near future. I have gone through the reasoning of the learned L. A. Judge in fixing the value of the land at Rs. l lac per kani. No reason has been given by the learned L. A. Judge for fixing the said low rate except saying that the land under acquisition situate at the Bangladesh Border and it does not fall within the market area. The finding of the learned L.A.Judge may be correct. But he has not discussed the future scope or expan­sion of the airport township or Agartala Capi­tal township to the aforesaid place and the growth in commercial and industrial activities around it which may eventually increase the rate of value of the land. If the aforesaid fac­tors are taken into consideration the rate of Rs. 1 lac per kani as determined by the learned LA Judge is not found to be just and reason­able. While saying that the rate fixed is not just and reasonable, court has to see that while determining the market value of the acquired land it should cause neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. The law of compensation under the L. A. Act, as laid down in Vyriecherla Narayan Gajapati Raju Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer re­ported in AIR 1939 PC 98 followed in Ravinder Narayain Vs. Union of India re­ported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 , is that the com­pensation must be determined by reference to the price which the willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. It is also laid down in the later's case that the first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. It is also laid down in the later's case that the first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Admit­tedly, from the assessment note of the L. A. Collector as referred to earlier, at least in three sale deed instances executed on 18.2.2002 including the land of Smti Tapasi Debnath which is stated to be not situated near the market area, value has been assessed at the rate of Rs.4 lacs per kani, irrespective of sta­tus of the land either 'tilla' or 'bastu' and the distance which is within 1000 mtrs from the market area. The revenue authority has not shown the distance of the acquired land from the market area or from the lands which have been valued at Rs.4 lacs per kani. Although such distance has not been shown, it is an accepted position that both the acquired land and the land in the sale deed instances fall under the same Mauza. They may come un­der different 'sheets' of the same Mauza but no reason can be found to justify the rate fixed by the learned L. A. Judge at Rs. 1 lac only per kani which is far less than the rate of the lands mentioned in the sale instances. The expec­tation of the land owner has not been taken into account. In the present case the respond­ent No. 1/claimant can reasonably expect at least half of the rate i.e. Rs.2 lacs per kani as compared to Rs.4 lacs per kani in respect of land situated near the market area. The ven­dor, respondent-1 -claimant can reasonably expect to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per kani as the reasonable rate. Half of the market value is to be accepted by the claimant because of the ground reality that the land is yet to fall under the market area al­though there is scope for expansion of the air­port township and its market area in future to the land under acquisition and he potentiality of the land in question has to be taken into account for enhancing the rate of value of the land to Rs.2 lacs per kani. In no case, be­cause of the existing status of the land, the rate can be fixed at Rs.4 lacs per kani until it could be shown that the area has been cov­ered under the market area due to extension oftownship. 17. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it would meet the interest of claimant and the acquirer of the land if the rate of the land is fixed at Rs.2 lacs per kani and calculate the compensation legally due to the claimant. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1/claimant at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per kani with the solitium and interest as was directed/ordered in the impugned judgment passed by the learned LA Judge. 18. This appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) only to be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent/Claim­ant. Return the LCR, forthwith.