JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions of law are involved in these cases. 2. All the appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings. Notification dated 19-11-1997 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act) was issued by the State of Tripura for construction of railway line from Kumarghat to Agartala. The present cases all relate to mouja-Badharghat. The L.A. Collector awarded compensation for Bastu, Viti and Chara land @ Rs. 1,06,000/- per kani, i.e. Rs. 2,65,000/- per acre. In respect of Tilla land, he awarded Rs. 80,000/- per kani or Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. All other classifications of land were valued @ Rs. 70,000/- per kani or Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The claimants filed petitions under section 18 of the L.A. Act and the L.A. Judge granted Rs. 2,55,000/- per kani, i.e. Rs. 6,37,500/- per acre irrespective of the classification of the land. This award of the L.A. Judge is under challenge in these appeals. 3. I need not go into a detailed analysis of the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties in view of the fact that in respect of the same notification and the same mouja and identical awards, a learned Single Judge of this Court in L.A. Appeal No. 14 of 2003 and many other connected matters decided on 08-06-2012 considered all the arguments and thereafter held as follows:- 36. On the principle as developed by the Apex Court, the price of the exemplar land would be considered as the base price and thereafter the appropriate deduction as required be made in the context of the development index of a particular acquisition instance for determination of the market value of the land. But the deduction be ranged from 20% to 75% considering the factors and the development instance with the comparable and the compared land. The deduction that has been made by the learned L.A. Judge comes to 59% if the base price is taken from the exemplar of the Exbt.-1 series. Though it is apparent on the record that only 25% has been deducted on consideration of the development of the vast acquired land following the strange formula of averaging of two sale instances or exemplars, the actual deduction was made to the extent of 59%. Though it is apparent on the record that only 25% has been deducted on consideration of the development of the vast acquired land following the strange formula of averaging of two sale instances or exemplars, the actual deduction was made to the extent of 59%. In view of the learned L.A. Judge as reproduced hereunder, the deduction of 59% is not only unreasonable and prejudicial to the land-losers but also unsustainable in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court so far. The deduction should have been within the range of 25-30% in the different belting on considering that the said land is situated in an urban area having the annual escalation rate more than 30%. From the above findings of the L.A. Collector which the opposite party relied, it is clear that the acquired land was having with some facilities of water supply, electricity etc. and the records speaks that the present acquired lands are of Sheet No. 5 of Mouja Badharghat and it is more developed than that of Sheet No. 6. The acquired land of referring-claimant of Misc.(L.A.) 42 of 1999 is situated near the big road but the other lands are not situated near the big road but those are situated within close proximity of each other of Mouja Badharghat Sheet No. 5 which is within the close vicinity of Agartala Municipal area having some sorts of urban facilities and except 50% of the land of Misc. (L.A.) 25 of 1999 the acquired land of all other referring-claimants are mostly bastu/viti class of land and most of it were having with residential huts/buildings, structures thereon and also there were different valuable trees. It does not appear that the acquired land was having with high commercial potential value. But it is established on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record that the acquired lands of the present cases are mostly bastu/viti class of land and were having with urban facilities and while awarding compensation all those factors should be taken to consideration. 37. The market value as determined by the learned L.A. Judge, if reassessed as per the time tested principles, it would be evident that the market value is in the lower side than what it should have been. 37. The market value as determined by the learned L.A. Judge, if reassessed as per the time tested principles, it would be evident that the market value is in the lower side than what it should have been. As the referring claimants did not project any grievance by filing appeals or cross objections, this court should not venture for interfering with the impugned assessment as made by the learned L.A. Judge. However, it would be apposite to restate that while determining the value of the acquired land, the Court must always bear in mind that in majority of cases the acquisition of land deprives the land owner of his/her only source of livelihood, sustenance and shelter. The acquiring authority and the beneficiaries of acquisition can always recover the cost of land from the allottees of the plots. If the allotment is made to the industrial entrepreneurs, they will invariably pass on the cost of land to the consumers of their products. Therefore, while increasing the percentage of deduction from the market value determined by the Reference Court or the Land Acquisition Collector, it should be extremely careful and circumspect and should have, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, refrained from increasing the percentage cut on the higher side, which resulted in depriving the land owners of their right to receive just and reasonable compensation. 4. Applying the same principles and in view of the fact that appeals against identical awards have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, these appeals are also dismissed in terms of the judgment delivered in L.A. Appeal No. 14 of 2003 and other connected matters. 5. Send down the lower court records forthwith.