JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) : This land acquisition appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.01.2012, passed by learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Misc.(LA) 15 of 2009 whereunder the learned L.A. Judge while deciding a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, directed compensation to be paid to the respondent-referring claimant at an enhanced rate of Rs. 3,26,000/per kani of ‘Nal’ class of land. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. A. Roy Barman for the appellant-Union of India and learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Saha for the respondent No.1. Also heard learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Charkaborty for the respondent No.2. 3. For the construction of byepass road at Mouja Anandanagar under Srinagar Tehasil of Bishalgarh Sub Division, land measuring 9.871 acres of different classes of land was acquired, vide notification No.9(18)REV/ACQ/XIV/2004, dated 26.04.2004, under Section 4 of the L.A. Act followed by declaration of even No. dated 25.05.2004. In the process, land measuring 0.16 acres of ‘Nal’ class of land belonged to the respondent-referring claimant Subal Chandra Debnath was also acquired and L.A. Collector determined compensation for the ‘Nal’ class of land @ Rs. 2,00,000/per kani. 4. The referring claimant i.e. the respondent No.1 herein received compensation under protest with a request to refer his case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for determination of proper compensation and accordingly the L.A. Collector made the reference to the learned L.A. Judge. 5. On receipt of the reference, learned L.A. Judge registered it as Case No. Misc.(LA) 15 of 2009 and in the process claim statement and counter statements were filed and both side adduced evidence. The referring claimant relied on following four sale instances, namely i. Sale Deed No.12805 dated 11.4.2003, ii. Sale Deed No.12806 dated 11.4.2003, iii. Sale Deed No.19361 dated 30.10.2002 and iv. Sale Deed No.19379 dated 30.10.2002. 6. Learned L.A. Judge discarded the sale instances but enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,26,000/per kani and that enhancement has been challenged by the requiring department in the present appeal contending that having no evidence and materials, the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation from that of the amount which was determined by the L.A. Collector. 7. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. 3,26,000/per kani and that enhancement has been challenged by the requiring department in the present appeal contending that having no evidence and materials, the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation from that of the amount which was determined by the L.A. Collector. 7. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Roy Barman that arising out of acquisition of land under same notification and same Mouja, this court while deciding L.A. Appeal no.28 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal No.29 of 2013 set aside the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge and the present appeal is identically same and is covered by that judgment. Learned counsel, Mr. Saha fairly conceded that the present appeal is covered by that judgment. 8. A copy of that judgment is placed on record and it be kept in the record of this appeal. 9. I have perused the said judgment passed in L.A. Appeal No.28 and L.A. Appeal No.29 of 2013. As it appears the same set of sale instances produced by the referring claimant in this case also. No evidence adduced to show that those sale instances were of comparable land and there is also no evidence to show that the market price of the acquired land was more than what was awarded by the L.A. Collector. 10. As I find the present appeal is covered by the observation made in the judgment of L.A. Appeal No.28 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal No.29 of 2013. Since the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation based on no supporting evidence, the judgment and award dated 27.01.2012 is set aside. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. 13. Parties to bear their own costs.