JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. This appeal under Section 54 of L.A. Act, 1894 is directed against the judgment and award, passed by learned L.A. Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur in case No. Civil Misc.(LA) 07 of 2002. 2. Fact in short necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: For construction of a permanent bridge over Dhalai river under Mouja-Salema, Salema Tehshil Kachari of Kamalpur Sub-Division, certain area of about 1.50 acres of land classified as Dokan/Pukurpar, Bastu, Nal, Balurchar/Layek Patit, etc. was acquired and a Notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act dated 11.06.2009 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act dated 12.10.1999 were issued and the L.A. Collector in due course determined compensaton @ Rs. 4,30,000/- per kani for Dukan/Pukurpar class of land, Rs.1,20,000/- per kani for Bastu class of land, Rs.85,000/- per kani of Nal, and Rs.15,000/- per kani of Balurchar/Layek Patit class of land. Certain 0.06 acres of land of the claimant-respondent Manju Rani Shil was also acquired, recorded in Khatian No.626, Plot No.2005/2576, classified as Nal class of land and compensation was paid @ Rs. 85,000/- per kani as determined by the L.A. Collector. The respondent-claimant received the amount under protest, claiming that the amount determined towards price of land was inadequate and requested the L.A. Collector to refer it to the L.A. Judge for determination of the amount of compensation as per the prevailing market rate on the date of acquisition i.e. the date of making Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, and accordingly, the L.A. Collector referred the matter to the Court of L.A. Judge. The learned L.A. Judge(Addl. District Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura) in due course determined the price of the acquired land of the claimant-respondent @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani with other benefits thereon and being aggrieved, the L.A. Collector preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondent. 4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that learned L.A. Judge whimsically determined the compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani and he based his finding mechanically on some title deeds, which were not marked as exhibits in the proceeding. D.C. Nath for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the respondent. 4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that learned L.A. Judge whimsically determined the compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani and he based his finding mechanically on some title deeds, which were not marked as exhibits in the proceeding. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that the burden was on the claimant-respondent to prove that the compensation determined by the L.A. Collector was not appropriate and/or inadequate and such burden cannot be shifted on the shoulder of the L.A. Collector. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that the compensation was determined on the basis of a price list of the land prevailing in the area as per Govt. Notification issued by the Revenue authority and according to the assessment order made by the L.A. Collector, the price was determined as agreed by the claimant-respondent and other land-holders and so the determination of higher price by the learned L.A. Judge was not called for at all. 5. On the other hand, appearing for the claimant-respondent, learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas has submitted that the land was acquired in the year 1999. The documents of which learned L.A. Judge relied on was of 1989 i.e. executed ten years before the date of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and those title deeds were reflecting the price of land at the rate of more than Rs.4,00,000/- per kani even ten years before the date of acquisition. Under such circumstances, determination of compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani was at a lower side and such determination does not deserve interference. He has also submitted that the claimant-respondent in her deposition categorically stated about the title deeds filed by her in consideration of compensation but those were not formally marked as exhibits, though prayed by the claimant-petitioner and that was a mistake done by the learned L.A. Judge for which the claimant-petitioner should not be put to suffer after 20 years of acquisition of her land. If the case is remanded to the Court below after such prolonged period it will cause serious injustice and the petitioner will suffer and will not get her due compensation even after 20 years of her loosing the land. 6. If the case is remanded to the Court below after such prolonged period it will cause serious injustice and the petitioner will suffer and will not get her due compensation even after 20 years of her loosing the land. 6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel of both side and perused the claim statement submitted by the claimant-respondent and the objection statement submitted on behalf of L.A. Collector as well as the evidence on record adduced by both side. The claimant in her claim statement and in her deposition stated that the acquired land was situated within the market area of Salema and all the Govt. offices and other important establishments were within 300-500 cubits. The land was most potential and important and the L.A. Collector most whimsically determined the rate of compensation @ Rs. 85,000/- per kani. In her deposition, she clearly mentioned that she relied on the market rate reflected in three title deeds, which she has submitted and prayed for marking exhibits. She has also mentioned the number of those three deeds in her deposition as Deed No.1-1015 of 1989, 1-1018 of 1989 and 1-481 of 1989. She has stated that the land under transaction of all those deeds were within a distance of 200 cubits from the acquired land and the class of land were Layek Patit and Pukur Par(Nal), etc. This evidence of the petitioner has not been discarded by adducing counter documentary evidence on behalf of the appellant, L.A. Collector. The appellant examined two witnesses but no document was produced. Even the assessment order was also not exhibited. In the counter statement filed before the L.A. Collector as well as in the deposition of OPW Nos.1 and 2 it was only stated that based on the market price fixed by the Revenue Department/SDO, Kamalpur, the value of the land was determined by the L.A. Collector. No such document produced before the learned L.A. Judge. Under such circumstances, the statement made by learned senior counsel cannot be appreciated. 7. This is settled law that consideration of the market price of comparable land on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, is the best method of determining the market value of the acquired land. Some sort of guess work, some assumption and presumption, always takes place while determining the compensation based on such document of comparable land. Some sort of guess work, some assumption and presumption, always takes place while determining the compensation based on such document of comparable land. But at least a reasonable decision may be arrived at based on such document. No doubt, the document has not been exhibited and that is a serious lapse on the part of the learned L.A. Judge, who being a senior officer, has ignored the procedure prescribed by law. Such negligence on the part of the learned L.A. Judge speaks heavily on his efficiency and performance which may be otherwise dealt with. But, in the circumstances, where the title deeds were on record and the petitioner in her deposition mentioned about those title deeds specifically and prayed before the Court to mark it as exhibits, I think, for not marking the same as exhibits, remanding of the case to the lower Court after 20 years will cause great miscarriage of justice. 8. In the Notification, as I find, only 1.50 acres of land was acquired, admittedly, for the purpose of construction of the bridge. Altogether, lands belonged to 25 persons were acquired and those small plots of land consist of Dukan, Pukur Par, Bastu, Nal, Layek Patit, etc. class of land, within a compact area of 1.50 acres. Since Dokan Viti class of land were also available within the compact area, it means, the land was very near to the market area. The petitioner's land was recorded as Nal class or Layek Patit class of land but such recording was done at the time of survey and settlement operation, long before the date of acquisition. OPW No.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the classification was recorded bases on the earlier settlement records. If we see the assessment order of L.A. Collector, copy of which is placed on record, it is evident that within a compact area 1.50 acre of land acquired for the purpose of construction of the bridge, the price of land determined by the L.A. Collector varied between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.4,30,000/- per kani in four categories of land, which seems to be totally unusual and unethical. There cannot be such unusual difference of the price of land within such a small area and that aspect has not been considered by the L.A. Collector or by the learned L.A. Judge. There cannot be such unusual difference of the price of land within such a small area and that aspect has not been considered by the L.A. Collector or by the learned L.A. Judge. The three title deeds produced by the claimant shows the price of comparable land in the same mouja adjacent to acquired land was about Rs.4,00,000/- per kani, prior to the date of acquisition and so determination of compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani cannot be altogether said to be unreasonable or at a higher side and therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the award made by the learned L.A. Judge. 9. In view of the above, the compensation determined by the L.A. Judge is found reasonable and the appeal stands dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. 10. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed