Order Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. P. Deb, learned counsel for the respondents. [2] This is an appeal filed by the North Frontier Railways under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 questioning the legality of the judgment dated 16.01.2010 delivered in case No. Misc. (LA) 03 of 2003 by the Land Acquisition Judge, No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the amount of the acquired land from Rs.74,000/(Rupees Seventy Four thousand) per kani to Rs.1,18,612/- (Rupees One lakh Eighteen thousand Six hundred Twelve) per kani. [3] Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the market rate as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is just and reasonable and the interference thereof by the Land Acquisition Judge is wholly unwarranted as the evidence does not support such enhancement by the Land Acquisition Judge. The Land Acquisition Judge has observed as under:- On examination of the comparable sale instances produced by the parties, it is seen that all the sale transactions were taken place prior to issuance of Notification U/S.4 of the L.A. Act and the lands of the comparable sale deeds and the acquired land are located within Dukli and Pratapgarh Moujas. It is also gathered from the pleadings that O.N.G.C., Jute Mill, Dr. B.R.A.M. Hospital, United Bank of India, Ram Thakur College, Badharghat Sports Stadium etc. are within half K.M. radius of the acquired land. [4] The Land Acquisition Judge has also interfered with the deduction made by the Land Acquisition Collector. On deducting from 20% the assessed rate, payable rate has been determined at Rs.1,48,265/- per kani for grossing up the compensation. [5] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also referred to the assessment sheet of the Land Acquisition Collector. From the assessment sheet, it appears that the Land Acquisition Collector had given a uniform rate for the entire Dukli mouja under the Bishalgarh Sub-Division. [6] From the other side, Ms. P. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this appeal is substantially covered by the decision of this Court delivered in L.A. App. No.03 of 2006 by the judgment dated 10.04.2014. The said land was also acquired for construction of the railway line between Agartala and Kumarghat under Mouja Dukli. [6] From the other side, Ms. P. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this appeal is substantially covered by the decision of this Court delivered in L.A. App. No.03 of 2006 by the judgment dated 10.04.2014. The said land was also acquired for construction of the railway line between Agartala and Kumarghat under Mouja Dukli. In that case, this Court interfered with the rate as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge and reduced the rate at Rs.1,52,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Two thousand) per kani. For purpose of reference, Para26 of the said decision is reproduced herein:- 26. The land is situated in a semiurban area and escalation of 10% per year can be granted on the sale examples. In the sale example at Sl. No. I, the sale took place on 02031996, i.e. about one and half years prior to the acquisition and, therefore, 15% is added and the value works out to Rs.3,41,715/-. In sale deed at Sl. No. V, the sale done on 07011997, i.e. about one year prior to the acquisition of land and, therefore, 10% is added and the value comes to Rs.34,510/-. In sale deed no. 15467, the sale done on 21121995, i.e. two years prior to acquisition of land and, therefore, 20% is added and the value comes to Rs. 80,000/-. Now, taking the average of the value of land with regard to these three sale deeds, the value of land comes to Rs.(4,56,225 ÷ 3) = Rs.1,52,075/- (rounded off to Rs.1,52,000/-) and this is in consonance with the judgment delivered by learned L.A. Judge in Misc.(L.A.) 82 of 1999. [7] Without expressing any opinion as regards the method followed in finding out the market rate, this Court finds that the market rate as determined Rs.1,52,000/is reasonable fair market rate. The land under the present appeal indubitably is proximate to the land related to LA Appeal No.03 of 2006 and others. Hence, re-appreciation as called for is not at all warranted, inasmuch as less amount vis-à-vis the amount determined by this Court in LA Appeal No.03 of 2006 has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the remainder of the amount/the enhanced awarded amount within a period of 3(three) months from today in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the remainder of the amount/the enhanced awarded amount within a period of 3(three) months from today in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge. Send down the LCRs forthwith.