Order Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.02.2010 passed by the learned LA Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (LA) 52 of 2004 the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A Lodh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Vide notification No. F.9(4)/- Rev/- Acq/- XIV/- 98 dated 27.02.1998 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as “LA Act”) and thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act vide Notification No. F.9(4)/- Rev/- Acq/- XIV/- 98 dated 27.04.1998, Bastu Class of land measuring 0.10 acres situated at Mouja Anandanagar under Khatian No. 2040, appertaining to CS Plots No. 5788/- 9197 and 5789 was acquired for laying railway track. 4. The LA Collector, West Tripura, (hereinafter referred to as “LA Collector”) gave award of Rs. 11,250/- for the acquired land @ Rs.45,000/- per kani and assessed total compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 34,332/- together with costs of removal of hutments and admissible interests. 5. The claimant-appellant received the compensation under protest and thereafter, submitted an application under Section 18 of the LA Act. The LA Collector referred the application under Section 18 of the LA Act to the Court of the learned LA Judge, for decision. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned LA Judge, as stated supra, the referring claimant-appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. The claimant-appellant has submitted the claim statement stating, inter alia, that the acquired land is situated in a densely populated area and within the natural built of the Agartala Town. It is also contended that Bidyasagar Girls HS School, Anandanagar HS School, MBB College, Anandanagar Science & Technology College, etc., are within ½ kilometer of the acquired land. It is further contended that the LA Collector gave compensation of the acquired land at the lower rate of Rs.45,000/- per kani though at the relevant time of acquisition the prevailing market value of the lands in the vicinity was @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani. 7. The Respondent O.P. No. 1, LA Collector has contested the case by filing counter statement asserted that the market price of the land was assessed keeping in mind the valuation of the lands adjacent to the acquired land. 10,00,000/- per kani. 7. The Respondent O.P. No. 1, LA Collector has contested the case by filing counter statement asserted that the market price of the land was assessed keeping in mind the valuation of the lands adjacent to the acquired land. It is also denied that the claimant’s land was usable for commercial purpose and other civil amenities were also available there. It is also denied that Bidyasagar Girls HS School, Anandanagar HS School, MBB College, Anandanagar Science & Technology College, etc., were situated within ½ kilometer of the acquired land. 8. The OPW No. 2, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), NF Railway, Agartala has resisted the claim of the claimant by filing counter statement. In his counter statement, he has justified the award made by the OPW No. 1 stating that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the OP No. 1 was very much just and reasonable. 9. The learned LA Judge, framed the following issues for deciding the reference case, which are as under: 1. Whether, the compensation fixed by the LA Collector towards the price of the acquired land represents the actual market price prevailing in the area at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act; 2. Whether, the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the LA Collector was just and proper; and 3. Whether the referring claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for. 10. In support of the claim, the claimant-appellant examined himself as PW 1 and also proved some sale instances which were market as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 examined one Sri Nanigopal Sarkar, Sr. Surveyor, office of the LA Collector, West Tripura, Agartala as OPW 1, who has also proved and exhibited the following documents, namely, Exhibit-A-Photocopy of Assessment Note dated 02.06.1998, Exhibit-B-Photocopy of Map of Mouja Anandanagar Sheet No. 3 (Rly) Exhibit-C-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 12147 dated 04.04.1997, Exhibit-D-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 11908 dated 17.04.1995 Exhibit-E-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 14829 dated 15.11.1995 Exhibit-F-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 14128 dated 02.08.1996 and Exhibit-G-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 13625 dated 03.07.1996 11. The requiring department, respondent No. 2, examined one Sri Pallab Bhattacharji, Jr. The requiring department, respondent No. 2, examined one Sri Pallab Bhattacharji, Jr. Engineer, office of the NF Railway (Construction) Agartala, West Tripura as OPW 2 who has also proved and exhibited the following documents, namely, Exhibit-H-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 15583 dated 16.09.1997 and Exhibit-I-Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 15136 dated 23.09.1996. 12. The learned LA Judge, in his judgment discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and also referred to the sale instances filed on behalf of the referring claimant as well as the OPW1 and OPW 2 which are as follows:- SALE INSTANCES FILED ON BEHALF OF THE REFERRING CLAIMANT: Sl. No. Description of the documents Measurement of land Value Rate per kani. 1. Sale Deed No. 1-6007 dated 31.05.2004 2 Gandas Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 10,00,000/- 2. Sale Deed No. 1-7654 dated 21.09.1990 4 Gandas Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- SALE INSTANCES FILED ON BEHALF OF OP No.1: Sl. No. Description of the documents Measurement of land Value Rate per kani 1. Sale Deed No. 1-2147 dated 04.04.1997 2 Gandas 1 Kara Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 44,445/- 2. Sale Deed No. 1-1908 dated 17.04.1995 3 ½ Gandas Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 57,143/- 3. Sale Deed No. 1-4829 dated 15.11.1995 5 Gandas Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 8,000/- 4. Sale Deed No. 1-4128 dated 02.08.1996 2 Karas 2 Krantas 10 Dhurs Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 28,235/- 5. Sale Deed No. 1-3625 dated 03.07.1996 8 Gandas Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 20,000/- SALE INSTANCES FILED ON BEHALF OF THE REFERRING CLAIMANT: Sl. No. Description of the documents Measurement of land Value Rate per kani 1. Sale Deed No. 1-5583 dated 16.09.1997 10 Gandas 1 Kara 1 Kranta 8 Dhurs Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 19,293/- 2. Sale Deed No. 1-5136 dated 23.09.1996 22 ½ Gandas Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 22,222/- 13. Finally, the learned LA Judge, referring to the judgment in Misc. (LA) 70/2004 wherein also the land was acquired for the same purpose for another notification, held that, the claimant-appellant is entitled to compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 67,497/- per kani and the compensation shall be added with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the LA Act and 12% under Section 23(i)(A) of the LA Act from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act till the date of possession or award, whichever is earlier. 67,497/- per kani and the compensation shall be added with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the LA Act and 12% under Section 23(i)(A) of the LA Act from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act till the date of possession or award, whichever is earlier. The interest on the amount of compensation and solatium shall be @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. 14. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the reference court committed serious error by excluding the various sale instances relied upon by the claimant-appellant though the lands involved in the sale instances are adjacent to the acquired land. Particularly, he relied upon the sale deed No. 17654 dated 21.09.1990 whereby 4 gandas of land was sold at Rs. 40,000/- , i.e. @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. 15. He further submits that the sale instances relied upon by the respondent OPs are lesser in amount and also not nearby the acquired land. He finally submits that the reference court in its judgment and award specifically stated that he did not look to attach much importance to the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the parties since there is documentary evidence, and while considering the documentary evidence he did not give any reason why he has excluded the sale instances relied upon by the parties, and passed his judgment relying on the judgment passed in Misc. (LA) 70/2004. 16. Mr. Lodh, while supporting the judgment of the reference court would contend that the reference court did not commit any wrong in relying upon the judgment passed in Misc. (LA) 70/2004 as the lands involved in the said case is also acquired by the same notification for the same purpose. 17. In Shaji Kuriakose V. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650 the Apex Court held, inter alia “It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive” 18. In the instant case, the reference court though excluded the sale instances relied upon by the parties, but did not give any reason and from the judgment in Misc. (LA) 70/2004, it is not clear whether any sale instances had been produced showing market value of the adjacent area at that relevant time to be Rs.2,00,000/- per kani or more than that. 19. Learned counsel for the parties are also not in a position to inform this Court as to whether against the judgment in Misc. (LA) 70/2004, any appeal has been preferred or not, and if preferred whether the award passed by the reference court has been enhanced or not. 20. The claimant-appellants relied upon two sale deeds as stated supra, and out of them sale deed No. 16007 dated 31.05.2004 was later in time then the notification. Thus, the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. On the other hand, the Sale deed No. 17654 dated 21.09.1990 is prior to the date of notification and the valuation of the land involved in that sale instance was two lakhs per kani. Thus, according to this Court, a land loser like the claimant appellant should not be deprived from the highest value of the sale instances relating to similar land in the locality. 21. Thus, according to this Court, a land loser like the claimant appellant should not be deprived from the highest value of the sale instances relating to similar land in the locality. 21. In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and Ors, Vs State of Punjab and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432 , a Division Bench of the Apex Court held as under:- “It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.” 22. Considering the evidence on record and the decision of the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reference court failed to consider the market value of the acquired land of the claimant-appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment and award of the reference court is set aside and it is declared that the appellant is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 2 lakhs per kani and as the acquired land is 0.10 acres, the claimant-appellant will be entitled to an amount of Rs. 50,000/- along with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits. At the time of making payment the respondent requiring department shall exclude the amount which has already been paid to the claimant-appellant. 23. The respondents are directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation along with all statutory benefits including solatium and interest, in accordance with law, within a period of three months. 24. In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 25. Prepare the decree. Send down the LCRs.