JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, L.A. Act), is directed against the judgment and award, dated 03.05.2005, passed by learned L.A. Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura, in case No. Civil Misc. (L.A.) 72 of 2002. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Chowdhury for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the respondent No. 1 and learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the respondent No. 2. 2. For the purpose of new railway line from Agartala to Kumarghat at mouja Kanchanpur, Sheet No. 2/P under Kulai T.K. of Ambassa Sub-Division, District Dhalai, land measuring 22.28 acres classified as Bastu/Bhiti/Nal? Lunga/Pukur/Chara/Tilla/bagan/Vidhyalaya/Baluchar/Path/Nayanjuli/Cherra etc. belonged to different 55 Nos. of land holders has been acquired under Notification No. F.9(5)/REV/ACQ/XV/2000, dated 5.8.2000 issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act followed by declaration of even number dated 30.09.2000, issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act by the Govt. of Tripura in the Revenue Department. The L.A. Collector in due course determined compensation for different classes of land as follows:-- 3. Land measuring 1.58 acres recorded in Khatian No. 562, C.S. Plot No. 1093/2423, 1094 classified as Nal land, belonged to the appellant, was also acquired and compensation was paid @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and total compensation was determined at Rs. 5,11,920/- and was paid to the appellant which the appellant received under protest and on a reference made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act by the respondent No. 1, learned L.A. Judge determined compensation and enhanced the market rate of the acquired land and awarded price of land @ 2,88,000 per acre. 4. Being dis-satisfied, the present appeal is filed by the claimant (appellant) inter alia stating that the learned L.A. Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record and consequently failed to pass an appropriate award towards price of acquired land of the claimant (appellant). 5. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that along with the memorandum of appeal, the appellant submitted a valuation chart of land at Mouja Kanchanpur of the year 2001-2002 which would show that the price of Nal class of land at the relevant time was Rs. 7 lakh per acre. But the L.A. Collector did not consider the valuation chart and awarded abnormally a low rate than that of the prevailing market value of the land. 7 lakh per acre. But the L.A. Collector did not consider the valuation chart and awarded abnormally a low rate than that of the prevailing market value of the land. It is also contended by learned counsel, Mr. Chowdhury that the acquired land, belonged to the claimant appellant, was having with all potentials and other facilities and very near to Ambassa-Kamalpur Highway and that water supply station, Gopal Sardar Para, Senior Basic School, go-down of gas agency etc. were very near to the acquired land and therefore, the acquired land ought to be considered as a potential land and appropriate compensation considering the registered sale deeds, marked as Exbts. 1 and 2 series ought to be given to the claimant-appellant but inadequate compensation has been awarded and those documents have not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel, further submitted that a certified copy of the map of Mouja Kanchanpur, sheet No. 2 has been filed by the petitioner with the memo of appeal to show that the land of Exbt. 1 and 2 series are comparable land and those documents would have been considered by the learned L.A. Judge for determining the adequate and reasonable compensation for the acquired land. 6. On the other hand, countering the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel, Mr. Majumder and Mr. Lodh for the respondents submitted that no such valuation chart or map was produced before the L.A. Judge to consider the sale deeds and there was no scope of considering those documents at the appellate stage which has not been exhibited in course of trial of the L.A. Case. Those documents, therefore, cannot be attached with any importance while deciding the present appeal. It is also contended that the acquired land is situated far away from the market and Assam Agartala National Highway and it was simply Nal class of land having no other potential at all. The L.A. Collector determined compensation @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and that amount has been increased by the L.A. Judge considering previous judgment arising out of acquisition of similar class of land under same Mouja and same notification and so, there is nothing wrong in the decision of the learned L.A. Judge. 7. The L.A. Collector determined compensation @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and that amount has been increased by the L.A. Judge considering previous judgment arising out of acquisition of similar class of land under same Mouja and same notification and so, there is nothing wrong in the decision of the learned L.A. Judge. 7. The appellant in his claim statement inter alia contended that the market value of the land determined by the L. A. Collector was much less than the prevailing market price at the relevant time of acquisition. The claimant heavily relied on Exbts. 1 and 2 series. Exbt. 1 is a sale deed bearing No. 1-46 of 1999, dated 06.07.1999 executed by one Samir Lal Chowdhury in favour of Chandan Chakraborty for an area of land measuring 0.11 acres classified as Bastu and Lunga valued Rs. 65,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 2,36,363/- per kani. Exbt. 2 is a sale deed No. 1-88, dated 12.10.1999 executed by Kshirode Ranjan Datta in favour of Bhajana Rani Rudra Paul for an area of land measuring 0.05 acres classified as Layetpatit-Nal for Rs. 62,500/- i.e. @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani. 8. Nothing stated in the deposition of the appellant (claimant) as to the distance, location and/or situation of the land under transaction of those two deeds and as to how the land under those sale deeds were comparable land of the acquired land. Burden lies on the claimant-appellant to prove his case. No evidence adduced by the claimant-appellant to show that the acquired land was having with similar potentialities to that of the land under those two sale transactions. The map of the Mouja produced before this Court for the first time cannot be considered for determination of appeal since those were not produced before the learned L.A. Judge at the time of trial. Valuation certificate also was not produced before the learned L.A. Judge. No attempt was made by the appellant to prove those documents as additional evidence before this Court. Under such circumstances, neither the photocopy of the valuation certificate, as placed on record with the memorandum of appeal, nor the map of the Mouja annexed with the memo of appeal, can be considered for the purpose of determination of market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. Further, Annexure-2, annexed to the memorandum of appeal is a photocopy of land valuation of some plot Nos. Further, Annexure-2, annexed to the memorandum of appeal is a photocopy of land valuation of some plot Nos. having nothing in description as to who has issued it and what was the purpose of issuing the same. Those photocopies cannot be looked into as a document for consideration. Annexure-1, the certified copy of map of Mouja Kanchanpur No. 19, Sheet No. 2, Tehasil Kanchanpur, seems to be a certified copy of the map which is indicating the plot Nos. of acquired land as well as some of the plots of lands of the exhibited sale deeds but neither that certified copy of the map nor even a hand sketch map was placed at the time of trial before learned L.A. Judge. An appeal, according to law should be decided on the basis of the materials placed before the trial Court considering which the trial Court and/or inferior Court passed the judgment which has been challenged before the appellate forum. Any new material, placed before the appellate Court cannot be taken into consideration for determining the correctness of the judgment passed by the inferior Court, unless those new materials are brought on record according to the procedure prescribed by law. Simply submission of a copy of the map or valuation certificate with the memorandum of appeal is of no use and the appellate Court cannot attach any importance to those documents unless and until those are part of the evidence or materials on record on the basis of which the judgment impugned was passed which has been challenged in this appeal. 9. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge, I find that the learned L.A. Judge rejected those two exhibited documents on sole consideration that there was no evidence adduced to show that the land of those two exhibited sale deeds were of comparable land of the acquired land. However, learned L.A. Judge relied on exbt. A i.e. a previous judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge in cases arising out of acquisition of land under same Mouja and same notification. It is legally permissible that learned L.A. Judge may rely on a previous judgment passed by the same Court arising out of acquisition under same Mouja, Notification and Class of land. The observation of learned L.A. Judge in para 9,10 and 11 is found to be cogent which reads thus:-- 9. It is legally permissible that learned L.A. Judge may rely on a previous judgment passed by the same Court arising out of acquisition under same Mouja, Notification and Class of land. The observation of learned L.A. Judge in para 9,10 and 11 is found to be cogent which reads thus:-- 9. The claimant petitioner Sri Subhrajit Choudhury has produced and exhibited two sale deeds dated 6.7.99 and 12.10.99. But the claimant side did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence to show that the land acquired is a close vicinity of the land under exhibit 1 series and exhibit 2 series and that nature, type and potentiality of the land under Ext. 1 series and 2 series to be comparable with the acquired land. So it can be safely concluded that rate shown in exhibit 1 series and exhibit 2 series are of no help to the claimant. 10. On the other hand, L.A. Collector, opposite party No. 1, produced and exhibited one copy of judgment which is markedas Ext. A series passed Civil Misc. (LA) 20/02. It shows that land covered by exhibit- A series and the land in question in the instant case were acquired under very same notification and for the same purpose. The correctness and validity of the said judgment has not been challenged in any appellate forum and therefore the said judgment stands good. As the acquired land of this case and the land covered by Ext. 1 series was acquired under the very same notification and for the same purpose, to maintain uniformity I award the same value for the acquired land in question in the instant case as was awarded in Ext. A series and I answer both the issues accordingly. 11. Keeping in view of the entirety of the facts, circumstances and attending feature and legal position of law I am satisfied that it would be just and proper and befitting if the market value of the acquired land in question is assessed @ Rs. 2,88,000/- per acre as awarded in Ext. A series. 10. I find nothing to appreciate the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chowdhury and to interfere with the above finding of learned L.A. Judge. 11. The appeal accordingly, is found to be devoid of any merit and stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.