Order Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in L.A. App. No.15 of 2011 and for the respondents in C.O (F.A) No.12 of 2011 as well as Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in L.A. App. No. 15 of 2011 and for the cross-objector in C.O(F.A) No.12 of 2011. [2] For obvious reason, both the L.A. App. No.15 of 2011 and the Cross Objection being C.O.(F.A) No.12 of 2011 are tied up together for disposal by a common judgment. The judgment and award dated 12.01.2010 delivered in Misc. (L.A) 73 of 2005, hereafter referred to as the impugned judgment, has been challenged in both the appeal and the cross objection. [3] The undisputed fact is that the land measuring 0.46 acres has been acquired from the cross-objector, hereinafter referred to as the referring claimant, for the purpose of constructing RCC bridge over the river, Nayacherra near Nalchar Bazar on the Bishramganj Sonamura road, with its embankment. It is not also denied that the land-loser, Sudhir Ranjan Roy in whose lifetime the land was acquired, despite the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not raise any specific claim. Thereafter, on the purported inquiry to the land value, structure and trees standing thereon, the compensation of Rs.1,10,493/to the referring claimant for damage/destruction of huts and trees and the compensation of Rs. 2,36,158/- towards the cost of the building were awarded whereas the value of the land was determined in the following manner:- Class of Land Value of land per Kani Bastu(Nal) : Rs.60,000/- Dokan (Nal) : Rs.80,000/- Nal : Rs.55,000/- Pukur, Pukur Par, Bhiti and Chara : Rs.40,000/- Khelarmath, Path, : Rs.30,000/- [4] Being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Judge, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was asked for on receiving the compensation under protest. On reference both the referring claimant and the Land Acquisition Collector submitted their claim statement and the written statement denying the claim as raised by the referring claimant. On reference both the referring claimant and the Land Acquisition Collector submitted their claim statement and the written statement denying the claim as raised by the referring claimant. By the impugned judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge No.3, West Tripura, Agartala has enhanced the market rate as follows:- Bastu(Nal) : Rs.8,00,000/- per kani Dokan (Nal) : Rs.9,00,000/- per kani Nal : Rs.7,00,000/- per kani Pukur, Pukur Par, Bhiti and Chara : Rs.4,00,000/- per kani Khelarmath, Path, : Rs.3,00,000/- per kani Being aggrieved by that judgment, both the Land Acquisition Collector and the referring claimant respectively filed the appeal and cross-objection. [5] Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has succinctly submitted that in enhancing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Judge has failed to determine the relevant factors on records, rather he has resorted to wild guess, bereft of any rationale. Thus, interference is called for. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge has rightly discarded the sale deeds as introduced in the evidence by the referring claimant (Exbt.4 series) as those are not at all contemporaneous to the acquisition. One sale deed is of the year of 1986 and the other sale deed and the gift deed are of the year of 2005. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has strenuously argued that the contemporaneous sale deeds those are collected by the officer at the instance of the Land Acquisition Collector are only relevant. One sale deed being 1215 dated 11.02.2002 carries the sale price of Rs.52,625/- per kani whereas the other sale deeds bearing No.1193 dated 12.02.1998 and 1125 dated 29.01.1998 respectively the carries the sale price of Rs.4,44,445/- and Rs.1,25,000/- per kani. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that the land pertaining to sale deeds dated 29.01.1998, and 12.02.1998 are proximate to the acquired land, but the most proximate land is available in the sale deed No.1125 dated 29.01.1998 where the sale price is Rs.1,25,000/- per kani. Such submission has been made by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the basis of the assessment note which has been admitted in the evidence as Exbt.-A series. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the land is virtually a river bed and as such, the rate as awarded by the L.A. Collector was just and proper. Such submission has been made by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the basis of the assessment note which has been admitted in the evidence as Exbt.-A series. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the land is virtually a river bed and as such, the rate as awarded by the L.A. Collector was just and proper. The enhancement as made by the Land Acquisition Judge is de hors any basis. [6] From the other side, Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent cross-objector has submitted that the premises under which the enhancement has been made has caused serious prejudice to the cross-objector inasmuch as the relevant materials placed in the evidence were not properly assessed. Mr. Deb, learned counsel referring to deeds in Exbt.4 series has submitted that the sale deed bearing No.2259 of 1986 carries the sale price of Rs.60,00,000/- per kani. He has candidly submitted that the land under the said sale transaction is no doubt measured at .01 acres in Mouja Nalchar. He has further submitted that the sale deed No.11462, part of Exbt.5 series even though is a gift deed, the said deed has been executed between the Government of Tripura and the original referring claimant. For a land measuring 0.12 acres, the consideration money for that transaction was fixed at Rs.6,00,000/-. Thus, it would come to Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. The another sale deed bearing No.724 of 2005, Exbt.6 series for a land measuring 2 karas 8 dhurs carries the sale price of about Rs.40,00,000/- per kani. That apart, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the award that has been made for destruction of the fruit bearing tress and other tress etc., is not only inadequate, but is extremely low. The finding in this regard as returned by the Land Acquisition Judge has been seriously criticized by Mr. Deb, learned counsel contending that there was no inquiry at all in that aspect of the matter. Moreover, he has pointed out to the part of the cross-examination of one Surajit Chakraborty, an officer of the requiring department who has categorically stated that in the year 2005, the value of the land nearby the acquired land was Rs.20,00,000/- per kani. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that the landloser deserves an even handed treatment and the just award. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that the landloser deserves an even handed treatment and the just award. The award that has been passed by the Land Acquisition Judge cannot be accepted as the just compensation. [7] Having regard to the rival contentions as projected by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court has to expand its consideration towards the following points: (i) whether the land value as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge requires interference from this Court and (ii) whether the compensation as given by the Land Acquisition Judge is just and adequate. [8] Among the deeds those find mention in the assessment note of the Land Acquisition Collector except the deed No.1215 dated 11.02.2002, no other deed is contemporaneous to the acquisition and according to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel those lands situate in the proximity of the acquired land, but on scrutiny of the records, it has surfaced that neither were those deeds introduced in the evidence nor had there been any endeavour to collate the description of the land as available in the deed with the map as produced by the referring claimant. As such, the description contained in the assessment note can hardly be relied by this Court. However, since the assessment was made in a proceeding this assessment note can be considered for a very limited purpose. The observation as returned by the Land Acquisition Judge is pertinent and hence the relevant part of that finding is reproduced hereunder:- 10. I have gone through the affidavit-in-chief of the witnesses produced from the side of the claimant and O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and their respective cross-examination. The cross-examinations mostly contain denials with the exception that claimant has admitted that he did not mention the number of trees standing on the acquired land and D.W.1 in his cross-examination had admitted that in the year 2005 the value of the land adjacent to the acquired land was Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani. This leaves me to decide the issues mainly on the basis of the documentary evidence and the citations referred. No sale instance around the time of the accusation being proved from any side, the adequacy or otherwise of the rate of compensation ascertained by the L.A. Collector is to be decided banking upon the sale deeds proved by the claimant. This leaves me to decide the issues mainly on the basis of the documentary evidence and the citations referred. No sale instance around the time of the accusation being proved from any side, the adequacy or otherwise of the rate of compensation ascertained by the L.A. Collector is to be decided banking upon the sale deeds proved by the claimant. The sale deed of the year 2005 marked exhibit6 series will not, however, proved to be much useful in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to as (1997) 8 SCC 186 wherein it is decided that post notification sale transaction can be taken into consideration on the claimant establishing that there was no rise in the price of the land after issue of notification under Section 4. On facts of the case claimant has failed to prove the conditions for which the sale deed cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, the land is located at Paschim Nalchar. This means that we are to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to as (2004) 2 SCC 283 allowing 15% appreciation for every subsequent year based on sale instance of 1986. However, in arriving at the market vale, the ratio of the case reported as (1988) 2 SCC 150 is to be taken into consideration wherein it is stated that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for and cannot be directly adopted in valuation of large tracts of land as two are not comparable properties. In the instant case, the quantum of land attracted by exhibit5 series is 0.01 satak, i.e., half ganda whereas the lands acquired measures 0.46 acre, i.e., 1 kani 3 gandas. As no sale deed is exhibited for different classes of the acquired lands from any side it has become difficult to ascertain the appropriate market value. However, from the discussion already made it is apparent market value of the acquired land as fixed by the L.A. Collector is too low and it is made without any basis. As no sale deed is exhibited for different classes of the acquired lands from any side it has become difficult to ascertain the appropriate market value. However, from the discussion already made it is apparent market value of the acquired land as fixed by the L.A. Collector is too low and it is made without any basis. In the circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the evidence on record, ratio of the decisions referred to above and making some guesswork, I assess the following rate as the appropriate market value of the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act:- Bastu (Nal) - @ Rs.8,00,000/- per kani Dokan (Nal) - @ Rs.9,00,000/- per kani Nal - @ Rs.7,00,000/- per kani Pukur, Pukurpar, Bhiti and Cherra - @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani Khelarmath, Path and Nala - @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani 11. Claimant in his cross-examination has admitted that number of trees standing on the acquired land has not been mentioned. Since this is not mentioned, admittedly there is no mention as to the number of the particular tree, age of the tree etc. So, I do not find any basis to enhance the compensation granted by the L.A. Collector under this head. Similarly, there is no authentic evidence regarding the type ad extent and other details of the building claimed to have been in existence on the acquired land. So there is no basis and reason to enhance the compensation granted by the L.A., collector under this head as well [Emphasis supplied] [9] It is quite apparent from the cross-examination of the referring claimant namely, Koushik Roy that the referring claimant nowhere did mention the number of trees which were standing on the land at the time of acquisition. This Court has even scrutinised the petition for reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by Sudhir Roy, the original referring claimant and it is found that even in that petition for reference, number of trees etc. are not mentioned. It is an admitted position that in response to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, the referring claimant did not raise any specific claim in writing or by filing any supporting documents. are not mentioned. It is an admitted position that in response to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, the referring claimant did not raise any specific claim in writing or by filing any supporting documents. As such, this Court does not find any premise to interfere with the award as made by the Land Acquisition Collector and affirmed by the Land Acquisition Judge in respect of the trees and structure on the acquired land. Even no evidence has been led except some vague statement. [10] Now this Court would consider whether the assessment of the land value as made by the Land Acquisition Judge is based on evidence or reason or whether that rate requires further enhancement in view of the grounds as projected by the cross-objector. The Land Acquisition Judge has discarded all the sale instances as relied by the referring claimant, the cross objector herein, as those were not contemporaneous and the rate for the small piece of land cannot be made the basis for determining the comparable market rate for the acquired land. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that no sustainable reason has been provided by the Land Acquisition Judge for enhancing the rate. The enhancement is based on wild guesswork. Even though elaborate reasoning has not been provided but the Land Acquisition Judge has pursued a procedure in consonance with a few decisions of the apex court. The principle in this regard is that where there is no contemporaneous sale instance is available, then an independent inquiry into the advantages related to the acquired land may be taken into consideration for purpose of determining the rate. There is no such rule that postacquisition sale instance cannot be taken into consideration. In this regard, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in Karan Singh and others vs. Union of India, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 186 , where the apex court has observed that: “the court would be justified in relying upon the transaction of sale of land having similar advantages nearer to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which can be taken as a guide for determining the market value of the acquired land and compensation to be awarded to the claimants. Thus the transaction of sale of land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act can guide the court in fixing the market value of the acquired lands under certain conditions. In the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector Varanasi: (1988) 2 SCC 150 , it was held thus :- Such subsequent transaction which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value.” [Emphasis supplied] [11] The illustration as given by the apex court of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector Varanasi, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 150 is to find out whether the land value is fluctuating or stable. It has no relevance in the present case, inasmuch it appears that the post acquisition sale instance as well as the cross-examination of the officer of the requiring department can be used for denoting the trend in the price of land in the same area. In 2005, the similar kind of land has been sold out. From the sale instances collected by the land Acquisition Collector, it transpires that in 1998 a Doba class of land was sold at Rs. 4,45,445/-. For purpose of calculation, if that price of Rs.4,45,445/is rounded off at Rs.5,00,000/- and the rate of the similar kind of land in 2005 is considered at Rs.20,00,000/- , what it can be gathered is the escalation rate in that area. That may not be the uniform escalation rate. Hence, the rate of enhancement is ascertained at 15% on adjusting the development cost. That may not be the uniform escalation rate. Hence, the rate of enhancement is ascertained at 15% on adjusting the development cost. Having regard to the decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun, through its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar and Another, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 283 , this Court is of the opinion that over the rate of 1998, the referring claimant may be entitled to get the increase at 15% per annum over the land value inasmuch as that rate is coincidentally equal to the rate of escalation as gathered from the record of the evidence, Thus, the land value comes at Rs.8,75,172/-, rounded off at Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lacs) for Bastu (viti) class of land. The referring claimant would get Rs.10,00,000/- per kani for Dokan viti, Rs.8,00,000/- per kani for Nal class of land and for the remaining class of land he would get Rs.5,00,000/- on average per kani. 30% of the value shall be added as the solatium as per provision of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The additional compensation @12% shall further be added as per provision under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. There shall be no direction for further cost for the trees, huts and building etc. The damages as ascertained by the Land Acquisition Collector shall remain undisturbed. On the land value and solatium, interest would be paid in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [12] In the result, the appeal filed by the State of Tripura and others stands dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the referring claimant stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the decree accordingly. Thereafter, send down the records.