ORDER 1. This appeal Is preferred by the appellant, who was the claimant-petitioner, against the judgment dated 24-1-2007 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (L.A.) No. 59 of 1999, whereby the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala (for short ‘the L.A. Collector’) to the tune of Rs. 1,06,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani for the acquired land measuring 0.85 acres together with solatium and usual interest as per the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant as well as Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-N.F. Railway. None appears for the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector. 3. The respondent-State by way of issuing a Notification dated 19-11-1997 under Section 4 of the Act, acquired an area of land measuring 55.75 acres for the construction of railway lines from Kumarghat to Agartala, out of which, land measuring 0,85 acres of the claimant-appellant situated at Mouja-Badharghat was also acquired. The L.A. Collector-respondent No. 1 assessed the market value of the acquired land of the claimant-appellant @ Rs. 1,06,000/- per kani. The claimant-appellant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the L.A. Collector claimed for enhancement of compensation @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani, besides other statutory benefits by way of preferring an application under Section 18 of the Act. The L.A. Collector referred the aforesaid application under Section 18 of the Act to the L.A. Judge and on receipt of the reference, the L.A. Judge (hereinafter referred to ‘the reference Court’) registered the said reference as Misc. (LA) No. 59 of 1999. 4. The L.A. Collector and the N.F. Railway resisted the claim of the claimant-appellant by filing their respective counter statement stating inter alia that the contentions of the claimant-appellant in her petition are not correct and that the compensation awarded in her favour is just, proper and adequate. Thus, the claim of the claimant-appellant should be liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of their respective claim, the parties have examined one witness each in favour of them. The claimant-appellant as well as the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector in support of their case has also produced some exhibited documents, which are marked as Exbt. 1 series, 2 series, 3 series and Exbt. 5. In support of their respective claim, the parties have examined one witness each in favour of them. The claimant-appellant as well as the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector in support of their case has also produced some exhibited documents, which are marked as Exbt. 1 series, 2 series, 3 series and Exbt. -- ‘A’ series to ‘C’ series respectively. The question arose before the reference Court was as to whether the compensation awarded for the acquired land by the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector is just and reasonable as required under Section 23 of the Act. 6. The learned reference Court considering the evidence as well as documents produced and exhibited by the parties and taking note of rapid upward trend in price of land assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani, i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre in his judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimant-appellant preferred the instant appeal for further enhancement of the market value of the acquired land. 7. The grounds taken by the claimant-appellant for enhancement are : (i) the learned reference Court failed to determine the proper compensation of the acquired land as well as the trees standing thereon; (ii) the learned reference Court though determined the market value and passed the impugned award, but did not pass any award for the value of the trees standing on the acquired land as the respondent No. I-L.A. Collector was not given any information regarding the trees standing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition though there were more or less 10,000 different types of trees. 8. The claimant-appellant in support of her case has produced and exhibited the sale deeds dated 4-8-1997, 30-7-1997 and 25-7-1997, which are marked as Exbt. 1 series, 2 series and 3 series respectively. But the claimant-appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the nature, type and potentiality of the lands under Exbt.-1 series to 3 series are to be comparable with the acquired land and is in the close vicinity of the land acquired in the instant case and, therefore, the rate as shown in those sale deeds did not rely upon by the learned reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land. Whereas the respondent No. 1-L.A. Collector in his counter statement specifically stated that the land in question was not utilized as “Dokan Vity” as mentioned by the claimant-appellant and the same is also not situated adjacent to the Siddi Ashram main road. It is also stated that the assessment was made properly for the land and trees and at the time of hearing under Section 11 of the Act no documentary evidence was produced before the respondent-L.A. Collector in support of her claim of Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani. Further case of the respondent-L.A. Collector before the learned reference Court was that 41 numbers of sale instances were produced by the different claimant-petitioners, whose lands were acquired for the railway project at the time of hearing under Section 11 of the Act and all the sale instances were spreading all over the entire acquired land and consequent thereto, the respondent-L.A. Collector considering the settled principle of law and on examination of the sale instances particularly taking note of the fact that the land of the claimant-appellant is situated in the rural side near the Madhuban village as­sessed and determined the market value. 9. The respondent No. 2, N.F. Railway, by filing its counter statement denied the contention of the claimant-appellant that except five Gandas of land, the acquired land was a fruit garden of the claimant-appellant and there were about 10,000 various fruit trees like as Jackfruit, Mango, Coconut Betel-nut etc. and the claimant appellant was maintaining the said garden properly and her yearly income was about Rs. 50,000/- by selling various fruits and also some fire wood. It is also stated in the counter statement that the land in question is situated in the rural area and there was thick bushes and it was barren and as such it had no potential value at all and the claim of the claimant-appellant has not been supported by any documentary evidence like sale instances. 10. It appears from the record that the claimant-appellant examined her as P.W. 1 and in her affidavit-in-chief she has reiterated the contention made in her claim petition and in her cross she stated that she cannot say the boundaries of the Exbt.-1 series to 3 series, the sale instances relied upon by her, and not only that she was also not aware about the Dag numbers, Khatian numbers of those exhibits. She has also stated that the acquired land is situated about one and half kilometer away from Bishalgarh-Agartala main road. On the other hand, the O.P.W. No. 1, Sri Nani Gopal Sarkar, a Senior Surveyor of the District Administration of L.A. Section in his affidavit-in-chief established that the land involved in deed No. 1745 was executed on 20-3-1996 @ Rs. 80,000/- per kani and land measuring 2 Gandas of tilla class of land was sold vide sale deed No. 921 dated 14-2-1996 at Rs. 6,000/- i.e. Rs. 60,000/- per kani and another deed No. 1752 dated 21-3-1997, wherein 2 Gandas of land was in­volved, was sold @ Rs. 80,000/- per kani and also another deed No. 386 dated 20-1-1997, relating to land measuring 2 Gandas of tilla class of land, which was sold at Rs. 10,000/- i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani. 11. The O.P.W. No. 2, Sri. Pallab Bhattacharjee, a Junior Engineer, in his affidavit reiterated the contention made in the counter statement and in his cross-nothing appeared which would adversely affect his contention made in affidavit-in-chief. 12. The learned reference Court considering the above referred facts and the evidence of witnesses, allowed the reference awarding compensation @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per kani for the acquired land together with solatium and usual interest as prescribed under the Schedule. 13. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, while asking for setting aside the impugned judgment and award and claiming for enhancement of the award, would contend that admittedly the claimant-appellant failed to identify the land involved in the sale instances, i.e. Exbt.-1 series to 3 series, but tried to convince this Court that the learned reference Court ought to have awarded some cost/compensation for the trees having valuable fruits standing on the land in question at the time of acquisition. In response to the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent-N.F. Railway, he also contended that separate claim petition before collector is not required to be filed for compensation of the trees as well as the huts (‘Dokan vity’). In response to the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent-N.F. Railway, he also contended that separate claim petition before collector is not required to be filed for compensation of the trees as well as the huts (‘Dokan vity’). He finally contended that there are three parts in the award passed by the L.A. Collector and as the claimant-appellant was not satisfied with the award relating to value of the land as well as trees, he preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference and as the L.A. Collector referred the said application to the learned reference Court it was the duty of the learned reference Court to consider the same in true sense so that the claimant-appellant should not be deprived of the market value of the land as well as the trees which were standing on the land at the time of acquisition. 14. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the requiring authority, i.e. N.F. Railway, Agartala submits that the learned reference Court did not commit any wrong while passing the impugned judgment and award fixing the just market value of the land in question with some guesswork as before him the claimant-appellant did not produce any evidence showing that her land is situated either near to the Agartala-Bishalgarh road or there was any “Dokan Vity” and also trees standing on the land in question. He further contended that the claimant-appellant did not examine any of the nearby residents as an independent witness in support of her claim and not only that she herself also failed to state regarding the nature of the land relat­ing to Exbt-1 series to 3 series and boundaries of the lands involved in those exhibits, the sale instances. He finally contended that the State Government not only acquired the land of the present claimant-appellant through the L.A. Collector for the railway project in question, but also acquired the lands of so many others and out of them some of the land owners preferred application under Section 18 of the Act and upon receipt of the applications, the L.A. Collector referred those applications before the learned reference Court and the learned reference Court also passed the award and being aggrieved, some of them preferred appeal before the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench and those appeals were dismissed. 15. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record it appears that neither the claimant-appellant nor the respondents placed sufficient evidence before the learned reference Court to determine the just market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale instances as exhibited. Thus, the learned reference Court has passed the impugned award on the basis of some guesswork. 16. By this time it is settled that when there is no sufficient direct evidence of mar­ket value, then the Court should have ascertained the market value taking the note of the nature of the land, location of the land etc. While computing the market value the mathematical precision relating to value of a land may not be possible in every case, but even in the same location/area two different sites/plots might have different value and in that case, some sort of guesswork is inevitable and admittedly in the instant case there is no direct evidence of market value regarding the acquired land. Thus, the learned reference Court determined the value of the acquired land with certain degrees of guesswork, which according to this Court is permissible subject to the value determined is not lesser than the market value prevailing at the relevant time. 17. In Chandrashekar (D) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2012 AIR SCW 73 : ( AIR 2012 SC 446 ) the Apex Court taking note of its earlier decisions noted that deduction on the head of development of the land is permissible as development is a continuous and on going process, which would be completed over a long stretch of time extending in some cases to a decade or even more. The Apex Court did not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that no deduction should be made in the case under the head of ‘development’ because no expense is shown to have been incurred for development of the land acquired from the appellants. The Apex Court also considered the deduction under the head of de-escalation, which is as under:-- “25. The Apex Court also considered the deduction under the head of de-escalation, which is as under:-- “25. Insofar as the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants on the issue of deduction under the head of “de-escalation” is concerned, reference may be made to the decision rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma (2004) 6 SCC 533 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4114 : 2004 AIR SCW 4538), wherein this Court found it appropriate to allow annual escalation, at the rate of 10 per cent, in order to determine the market value of the acquired land. In ONGC Limited v. Rameshbhai Jeewanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 : (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 465 : 2008 AIR SCW 5947), this Court held, that provision of 7.5 per cent, per annum towards escalation of land costs, was appropriate to ar­rive at the market value of the acquired land. In Valliyammal v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) (2011) 8 SCC 91 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2937 : 2011 AIR SCW 4591), this Court was of the view that 10 per cent per annum escalation in price, should be added to the specified price to determine the market value. It is therefore apparent that escalation in the market value has been determined by this Court at percentages ranging between 7.5 per cent, per annum to 10 per cent, per annum. Even though escalation of market price of land is a question of fact, which should ordinarily to be proved through cogent evidence. Yet, keeping in mind ground realities, and taking judicial notice thereof, we are of the view that land prices are on the rise throughout the country. The outskirts of Gulbarga town are certainly not an exception to the rule. The exemplar sale deed dated 30-12-1983 was executed exactly 1 year 7 months and 17 days after the publication of the preliminary notification on 13-5-1982. Keeping in mind the judgments referred to herein-above, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10 per cent/under the head of “de-escalation”, specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days.” 18. Keeping in mind the judgments referred to herein-above, we are of the view, that no fault can be found with the determination rendered by the High Court in making a deduction of 10 per cent/under the head of “de-escalation”, specially when the period in question exceeded one year (as for annual deductions), by 7 months and 17 days.” 18. In the said judgment the Apex Court took note of Brigadier Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, AIR 1982 SC 940 , wherein the Apex Court opined that “where a large area of undeveloped land is acquired, provision has to be made for providing minimum amenities of town-life. Accordingly it was held, that a deduction of 20 per cent. of the total acquired land should be made for land over which infrastructure has to be raised (space for roads etc.). Apart from the aforesaid, it was also held, that the cost of raising infrastructure itself (like roads, electricity, water, underground drainage, etc.) need also to be taken into consideration. To cover the cost component, for raising infrastructure, the Court held, that the deduction to be applied would range between 20 per cent. to 33 per cent. Commutatively viewed, it was held, that deductions would range between 40 and 53 per cent.” 19. In the said judgment the Apex Court also took note of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , wherein the Apex Court noted that “while referring to the factors which ought to be taken into consideration while determining the market value of acquired land, it was observed, that a smaller plot was within the reach of many, whereas for a larger block of land there was implicit disadvantages. As a matter of illustration it was mentioned, that a large block of land would first have to be developed by preparing its lay out plan. Thereafter, it would require carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (during which the invested money would remaining blocked). Likewise, it was pointed out, that there would be other known hazards of entrepreneur”. Considering the aforesaid likely disadvantages, the Apex Court held that “these factors could be discounted by making deductions by way of allowance at an appropriate rate, ranging form 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Likewise, it was pointed out, that there would be other known hazards of entrepreneur”. Considering the aforesaid likely disadvantages, the Apex Court held that “these factors could be discounted by making deductions by way of allowance at an appropriate rate, ranging form 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. These deductions, according to the Court, would account for land required to be set apart for development activities.” 20. In the instant case also the acquiring authority acquired a large quantity of undeveloped land for the railway project, whereas the respective parties produced the sale instances relating to smaller plots. Therefore, the land value shown in those sale instances cannot be considered as just and proper market value of the land in question. Moreso, in the instant case, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant did not raise any question regarding the market value determined by the learned reference Court, rather his contention before this Court was that the learned reference Court did not award any amount separately for the trees and huts (‘Dokan Vity’) standing on the acquired land as the respondents in their counter statements denied regarding the availability of the trees and the ‘Dokan Vity’ on the land. 21. In Section 3(a) of the Act, the expression “Land” includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Thus, it can be said that the trees standing on the land at the time of acquisition are nothing but part of the land being benefits arise from the same and the acquisition of the land is one of the mode of transfer of the land. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Lodh inter alia that the claimant-appellant is not entitled to get any separate award for the trees as well as the hut (‘Dokan Vity’) if any has some force. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh etc. AIR 1996 SC 106 , which was also followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in L.A. App No. 6 of 2005 (Sri. Jitendra Bhowmik v. The L.A. Collector). 22. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh etc. AIR 1996 SC 106 , which was also followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in L.A. App No. 6 of 2005 (Sri. Jitendra Bhowmik v. The L.A. Collector). 22. The learned single Judge while following Gurcharan Singh ( AIR 1996 SC 106 ) (supra), dismissed the appeal (L.A. App No. 6 of 2005) and cross-objection (C.O. (FA) No. 6 of 2005) and reproduced the relevant observation and decision of the Apex Court which is as under:-- “3. Ms. Suruchi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State, contended that the High Court has committed grave error of law in upholding the determination of the compensation both to the land as well as fruit bearing trees and has also further committed error in enhancing the market value to the fruit bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of the compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit bearing trees. It is against the settle principle of law as laid down by this Court in catena of decisions. We find force in the contention. Sri. Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the year 1996 the price index was at 144 point whereas in 1970 the index was found to be at 213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in increasing the compensation to the fruit bearing trees by 60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over, and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in Section 3 (a) of the Act. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over, and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in Section 3 (a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given. In this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,240 per acre on the basis of the yield, the multiplier applied is more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.” 23. The Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh etc. ( AIR 1996 SC 106 ) (supra) also noted that “The High Court committed error of law in further enhancing the compensation. Considered from this perspective, since we cannot interfere with the award of the collector, though the collector had committed palpable error of law in separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as fruit bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of S. 25 of the Act”. In the instant case also the collector awarded compensation separately for land and trees, which is not permissible, but this Court is not in a position to interfere with the said award being not challenged by the respondents. 24. It appears from the application made by the claimant-appellant under Section 18 of the Act, for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land that she stated in her petition inter alia that her acquired land is a valuable land and have high potentiality for plantation and other building etc. 24. It appears from the application made by the claimant-appellant under Section 18 of the Act, for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land that she stated in her petition inter alia that her acquired land is a valuable land and have high potentiality for plantation and other building etc. But the rate awarded for her acquired land was very inadequate and, hence, she was ready to receive the awarded amount under protest and also prayed for proper determination of the market value by the learned reference Court. Admittedly, she did not examine any independent witnesses to prove her case that there were trees and hut (Dokan Vity) on the acquired land at the time of acquisition and what should be the value of trees as fire wood. Unless the same is proved, the Court cannot award any compensation for damage of trees as well as huts on her claim. Had it been established by way of adducing evidence that there were trees having various kinds of fruits, then the learned reference Court could have assessed such damages of the trees as fire wood and huts with the help of experts but the claimant appellant herself did not take that opportunity available to her. 25. It also appears from the evidence of the claimant-appellant that the acquired land is about one and half kilometer away from Bishalgarh-Agartala main road such a statement of her actually support the contention of the respondents inter alia that the land in question is in the rural area and was thick bushes. Thus, obviously, she is not entitled to market value as provided to the land losers whose lands were situated just at the side of Bishalgarh-Agartala main road having other facility like transport etc. She has also stated in her cross that she did not furnish any map to show that the acquired land is adjacent to the land of Exbt. 1 series to 3 series. In absence of any map or evidence, on what basis the learned reference Court would come to the conclusion that her land is similar to the lands of sale instances in Exbt. 1 series to 3 series. According to this Court, the learned reference Court did not commit any wrong by not allowing her claim on the basis of the sale instances, thus no interference is called for. 26. 1 series to 3 series. According to this Court, the learned reference Court did not commit any wrong by not allowing her claim on the basis of the sale instances, thus no interference is called for. 26. In view of the reasons stated herein above, the instant appeal is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.