JUDGMENT & ORDER : All the three L.A. appeals, mentioned above, were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel of both side since the appeals arose out of acquisition of land under same notification and same Mouja and hence, this common judgment is passed which shall govern all the three appeals. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. A. Roy Barman for the appellant-Union of India (hereinafter mentioned as the requiring department); learned counsel, Mr. Sekhar Dutta for the private respondents i.e. the referring claimants (hereinafter mentioned as the referring claimants) in all the appeals and none appeared for the respondent-L.A. Collector in these appeals. 3. For construction of NH-44/A from Manu to Simlong at Mouja Manu under Manu Tehasil Kachari of Longtharai Valley Subdivision in Dhalai District, land measuring 13.25 acres in total belonged to different land holders was acquired. In the process, land measuring 0.03 acres classified as ‘Dokan’/‘Nal’ belonged to the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No. 35 of 2013 and land measuring 0.02 acres classified as ‘Dokan’ belonging to the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.39 of 2013 were acquired and L.A. Collector determined compensation for those ‘Dokan’ class of land @ Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) per kani. In the same process, land measuring 0.17 acres of ‘Bastu’ class and 0.03 acres of ‘Godam’ class belonging to referring claimants of L.A. appeal No.91 of 2013 was also acquired and L.A. Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh) per kani for ‘Bastu’ class of land and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) per kani for ‘Godam’ class of land. 4. The land holders received the compensation with a request to make reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly the L.A. Collector made the reference to the learned L.A. Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura. The case of the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2013 was registered as Misc.(LA) 13/2009. The case of the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.39 of 2013 was registered as Misc.(LA) 12/2009 and the case of the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.91 of 2013 was registered as Misc.(LA) 11/2011. 5. In course of trial before the learned L.A. Judge, the referring claimants submitted their claim statements and the L.A. Collector as well as the requiring department i.e. the appellant herein also submitted their counter statements. Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence in course of trial. 5. In course of trial before the learned L.A. Judge, the referring claimants submitted their claim statements and the L.A. Collector as well as the requiring department i.e. the appellant herein also submitted their counter statements. Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence in course of trial. In all the cases the referring claimants relied on a Sale-deed No. 1-332, dated 18.05.1988 and in Case No. Misc.(LA) 11/2011 the referring claimants also relied on the judgment passed in case No. Misc.(LA) 12/2009. 6. Learned L.A. Judge by judgment dated 25.02.2012 disposed Misc.(LA) 13/2009 enhancing the compensation for the acquisition of land @ Rs. 40,00,000/- (rupees forty lakh) per kani from that of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakh) per kani which was awarded by learned L.A. Collector. Similarly Misc.(LA) 12/2009 was also disposed of by judgment dated 27.02.2012 by the learned L.A. Judge enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 40,00,000/- per kani from that of Rs.10,00,000/-. 7. Case No. Misc.(LA) 11/2011 was disposed of by judgment dated 05.09.2012 and the learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation for ‘Bastu’ as well as ‘Godam’ class of land @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani. 8. Aggrieved the requiring department i.e. the appellant-Union of India preferred the present set of appeals. 9. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has submitted that learned L.A. Judge has enhanced the compensation towards price of land abnormally without any legal evidence. According to Mr. Roy Barman, the L.A. Collector taken into consideration the valuation chart which was prepared by the District Magistrate and Collector and that has been placed in evidence but the learned L.A. Judge did not attach any importance to that valuation chart. He has, however, admitted that the acquired land of L.A. appeal Nos. 35 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal No. 39 of 2013 were ‘Dokan’ viti class of land but contended that the price awarded by the L.A. Judge was not justified. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta on the other hand has submitted that this Court earlier also disposed of L.A. Appeal No.67/2013 and L.A. Appeal No.61/2013 by judgment dated 17.08.2016 and the present appeals are covered by those judgments. 11. After going through those judgments, I find that those cases also relate to acquisition under same notification and same Mouja but the class of land was not the same. 12. I have meticulously gone through the evidence adduced in these set of cases. 11. After going through those judgments, I find that those cases also relate to acquisition under same notification and same Mouja but the class of land was not the same. 12. I have meticulously gone through the evidence adduced in these set of cases. As I find the referring claimants examined themselves as witnesses and they relied on a Sale-deed No.1-332 of 18.05.1998 and it is an admitted position that the land of L.A. Appeal No.35/2013 and L.A. Appeal No.39 of 2013 were ‘Dokan’ class of land of Mouja Manu. The assessment note prepared by the L.A. Collector is placed on record. It shows that L.A. Collector fixed the price taking into account a valuation chart of Mouja Manu prepared by the Office of the D.M. & Collector, Dhalai and that valuation chart was exhibited on behalf of the respondents. In my considered opinion, learned L.A. Judge rightly discarded that valuation chart from consideration since the valuation chart was unilaterally prepared by the D.M. & Collector which cannot reflect the actual market price. 13. For compulsory acquisition of land as prescribed under Article 31A of the Constitution, compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value shall be paid to the land holders. It is a settled position of law that an ordinary sale transaction is held after vigorous bargain between the buyer and seller and such a genuine sale transaction may be fairly taken into account for determining compensation for acquisition of land. The referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.35/2013 and L.A. Appeal No.39/2013 relied on the Sale-deed No.1-332 of 1998 and according to them it was ‘Dokan’ (shop) viti class of land and that document shows that 1 kara, 1 kranta and 2 dhurs of land was sold at a price of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) which means the transaction was held @ about Rs.88,00,000/- (rupees eighty eight lakh) per kani. It shows that the land of Sale-deed was of Mouja Manu and the land of L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal 39 of 2013 was also of Mouja Manu and it is in the evidence that the land is at Manu market. It shows that the land of Sale-deed was of Mouja Manu and the land of L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2013 and L.A. Appeal 39 of 2013 was also of Mouja Manu and it is in the evidence that the land is at Manu market. No corresponding map has been produced to show the location of the land of sale instance, however, the respondents at the time of cross examination of the referring claimants did not dispute that the sale instance was not of a comparable land. Respondents simply examined one witness i.e. an Amin of the Office of the Collector and he has stated that the compensation was rightly awarded. The referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.35/2013 and L.A. Appeal No.39/2013 were awarded compensation by the learned L.A. Judge @ Rs. 40,00,000/- per kani and that amount cannot be said to be exorbitant and illogical amount. 14. In respect of L.A. Appeal No.91/2013 as it appears ‘Bastu’ and ‘Godam’ class of land was acquired and that was not within the market area rather it was away from market area and so far the assessment note of L.A. Collector is concerned, it shows that he classified the lands in different blocks and fixed different prices for the land of different blocks. Though the referring claimants of L.A. Appeal No.91/2013 relied on the same sale instance as well as the judgment of L.A. Judge in Misc.(LA) 12/2009 but those were not considered by the learned L.A. Judge. However, considering the fact that it was also potential land situated by the side of the high way and it was ‘Bastu’ and ‘Godam’ class of land so, he fixed compensation @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per kani. 15. Regarding the potentiality of the land what has been observed by the learned L.A. Judge is based on evidence of the referring claimants and that evidence of the referring claimants has not been shaken in cross examination. So, I find no justification at all to interfere in the judgment and award made by the learned L.A. Judge in case No. Misc.(LA) 11/2011. 16. All the appeals, therefore, are found to be devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed but without cost. 17. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.