JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.11.2011 delivered in Misc.(LA) 28 of 2007 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that by virtue of the Notification No.F.8(9)-Rev/Acq/XIV/97/P-1 dated 09.12.1997 issued under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent declaration under Notification No.F.8(9)-Rev/Acq/XIV/97/P-1 dated 09.12.1997, a total area of 2.54 acres of tilla and bastu class of land was acquired from the original respondent. On her death, her legal heirs have been substituted as the respondents. The acquired land is comprised in Khatian No.6072 and C.S. Plots No. 8320/P, 8324/P, 8320/13534, 8346, 8348 and 8324/P. The said land was acquired for laying the railway track. Since the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- @ Rs.80,000/- per kani for tilla class of land and Rs.1,06,000/- per kani for viti and bastu class of land under LA case No.10/SS/97, the original respondent urged for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the proper land value. 4. It is also not disputed that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs.8,88,908/- together with admissible interest. The referring-claimant, the original respondent, received the said compensation under protest and filed the application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference was registered as Misc. LA No.28 of 2007. The referring-claimant filed the claim statement and asked for the just rate for the acquired land. She made reference to the judgment and award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge in Misc.(L.A.) 26 of 1999, Misc. (L.A.) 33 of 1999, Misc.(L.A.) 39 of 1999, Misc.(L.A.) 46 of 1999, Misc.(L.A.) 53 of 1999, Misc.(L.A.) 71 of 1999, Misc.(L.A.) 72 of 1999 and Misc.(L.A.) 96 of 1999, where the market price of the acquired land was determined @ Rs.1,12,500/-per kani for tilla class of land and Rs.2,55,000/- per kani for viti and bastu class of land. The original referring claimant prayed for the same and equal rate. However, the appellant herein resisted such claim on diverse grounds, such as, location of the land and the index of the development etc. The original referring claimant prayed for the same and equal rate. However, the appellant herein resisted such claim on diverse grounds, such as, location of the land and the index of the development etc. Even the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala by filing the counter-statement, has contended that the rate as assessed by him was just and reasonable and having due regard to the prevailing market rate. The L.A. Judge framed the following issues for determining in that reference: “(i) Whether the compensation fixed by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala towards the price of the acquired land represents the actual market price prevailing in the area at the time of Notification U/S.17(1) of the L.A. act; (ii) Whether the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala was just and proper; and (iii) Whether the referring claimant is entitled to compensation as prayed for.” 5. The original referring-claimant examined herself and admitted the certified copy of common judgment dated 27.01.2004 in Misc. (L.A.) 26 of 1999 and others as stated. For the appellant, one Pallab Bhattacharjee, Junior Engineer was examined and they proved some sale instances, being sale deed No.1-4121 dated 03.07.1997 (Exbt.-A), sale deed No.1-6701 dated 20.12.1996 (Exbt.-B), sale deed No.1-4538 dated 24.07.1997 (Exbt.-C), sale deed No.1-5213 dated 27.08.1997 (Exbt.-D), sale deed No.1-5310 dated 23.11.1994 (Exbt.-E), sale deed No.1-3746 dated 08.07.1998 (Exbt.-F), sale deed No.1-3842 dated 10.07.1998 (Exbt.-G), sale deed No.1-4122 dated 03.07.1997 (Exbt.-H), sale deed No.1-1751 dated 18.03.1997 (Exbt.-I), sale deed No.1-786 dated 09.02.1996 (Exbt.-J) and sale deed No.1-5024 dated 19.08.1997 (Exbt.-K). 6. The Land Acquisition Judge while passing the impugned judgment dated 09.11.2010, has followed the principles as laid down in Ravinder Narein and another vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 1987 for purpose of making comparison between the sale instances which were relied in Misc.(L.A.) 26 of 1999 and Others and the sale instances as relied by the appellant (Exbt.A to Exbt.K). Even the advantages attached to the acquired land vis-a-vis the land in the sale instances were compared. From the para-14, it would evince that the Land Acquisition Judge has also considered the method that was followed by the Land Acquisition Collector for awarding the questioned rate. For purpose of reference, the para-14 is extracted from the said judgment: “14. Even the advantages attached to the acquired land vis-a-vis the land in the sale instances were compared. From the para-14, it would evince that the Land Acquisition Judge has also considered the method that was followed by the Land Acquisition Collector for awarding the questioned rate. For purpose of reference, the para-14 is extracted from the said judgment: “14. For determination of the market value of the acquired land the O.P.L.A. Collector has relied on the following comparable sale transactions : SALE INSTANCES FILED ON BEHALF OF O.P. NO.2 : Sl. No. Description of the documents Measurement of land Value Rate per Kani 1. Sale Deed No.1-4121, dated 03.07.1997 1 Ganda 1 Kara Rs.5,000/- Rs.80,000/- 2. Sale Deed No.1-6701, dated 20.12.1996 5 Gandas Rs.20,000/- Rs.80,000/- 3. Sale Deed No.1-4538, dated 24.07.1997 3 Gandas Rs.11,000/- Rs.73,333/- 4. Sale Deed No.1-5213, dated 27.08.1997 4 Gandas 2 Karas Rs.10,000/- Rs.44,444/- 5. Sale Deed No.1-5310, dated 23.11.1994 1 Kani 4 Gandas Rs.18,000/- Rs.15,000/- 6. Sale Deed No.1-3746, dated 08.07.1998 5 Ganda Rs.20,000/- Rs.80,000/- 7. Sale Deed No.1-3842, dated 10.07.1998 3 Ganda Rs.10,000/- Rs.66,667/- 8. Sale Deed No.1-4122, dated 03.07.1997 3 Ganda Rs.6,000/- Rs.40,000/- 9. Sale Deed No.1-1751, dated 18.03.1997 1½ Ganda Rs.5,000/- Rs.66,667/- 10. Sale Deed No.1-786, dated 09.02.1996 2 Gandas Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 11. Sale Deed No.1-5024, dated 19.08.1997 2 Gandas Rs.12,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- 7. On appreciation of all materials as placed before him, the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the rate from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,12,500/- per kani for tilla class of land and from Rs.1,06,000/- to 2,55,000/- per kani for viti and bastu class of land and directed for determination of the compensation having regard to all the components including the interest accordingly. For coming to that, finally the Land Acquisition Judge has observed that: “The location and the potential value of the present acquired land being same to that of the lands acquired in connection with Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 26 of 1999 and 7 others, I am guided to adopt similar view in the matter of fixation of market price of the present acquired land as I think that the market value of the acquired land determined by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura, Agartala was not just and adequate. I believe that it would be just and fair if the market price of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.1,12,500/-per kani for Tilla and Rs.2,55,000/-per kani for Viti and Bastu class of land on the date of issuance of Notification U/S.17(1) of the L.A. Act keeping in parity with the market value fixed in other similarly situated cases and accordingly, I do so.” Accordingly, he allowed the reference with further direction that the referring-claimant would be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and 12% under Section 23(i)(A) of the L.A. Act from the date of notification under Section 17(1) of the said Act till the date of possession or award whichever is earlier. The interest on the entire sum of amount and solatium shall be at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. 8. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel has fairly submitted that the appeal against the judgment as delivered in Misc. (L.A.) 26 of 1999 and others has been dismissed by this court on affirming the rate as awarded by the L.A. Judge. As such there cannot be any different judgment in this case inasmuch as there is no material on record to show the location of the land vis-a-vis the land for which the L.A. Judge awarded the said amount in Misc.(L.A.) 26 of 1999. 9. Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the substituted respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned judgment and the rate as fixed by the impugned judgment is equal to what has decided in the judgment and award passed in Misc.(L.A.) 26 of 1999. 10. Having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that, since this court has affirmed the rate as awarded by the L.A. Judge in Misc. (L.A.) 26 of 1999 and there is no material to make any differentiation out on the basis of location, this appeal cannot survive and accordingly it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award as passed by the L.A. Judge is hereby affirmed. Draw the decree accordingly. Thereafter, send down the records.