JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against judgment and award dated 13.01.2010 and 14.01.2010 respectively passed by learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2 in Misc.(L.A.) 21 of 2006. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondents even after repeated calls. On the last occasion also there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. Land measuring 0.024 acres classified as dokan (tilla) and bastu (tilla) at Mouja Kunjaban for the upgradation of road from Governor House to Capital Complex was acquired by notification dated 19.08.2002 and the L.A. Collector determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,50,000/- per kani for all class of land and Rs. 6,00,000/- per kani for dokanclass of land. The referring claimants i.e. the respondents herein accepted compensation under protest and prayed for a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Accordingly, reference was made and both side adduced evidence. Learned L.A. Judge considering the oral and documentary evidence enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,00,000/- per kani. Aggrieved, the present appeal is preferred by the present appellants. 4. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the document submitted by the L.A. Collector has not been considered and in paragraph 12 of the judgment learned L.A. Judge mentioned about Sale Deed No.19428 but that deed was not proved on behalf of the L.A. Collector. After going through the evidence on record I find that the referring claimants produced several sale instances which show the transaction at the rate of Rs. 18,00,000/- per kani. The deed which has been mentioned in the judgment as proved by L.A. Collector has practically was considered by the L.A. Collector in the assessment order and that was not put in the evidence. But the assessment order shows that Sale Deed No.9428 was produced by the Amin before the L.A. Collector at the time when the compensation was determined but no reason assigned as to why that deed was discarded. Anyway, the assessment of L.A. Collector is not an issue to be taken into consideration before the L.A. Judge. According to law, L.A. Judge was supposed to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before the L.A. Judge. Anyway, the assessment of L.A. Collector is not an issue to be taken into consideration before the L.A. Judge. According to law, L.A. Judge was supposed to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced before the L.A. Judge. The sale instances produced by the referring claimants were not disputed that those were not of comparable lands. It is a settled law that the sale instance carrying highest price shall be paid to the land-loser. While the law has been settled by the Apex Court that the highest price of a sale instance should be paid it does not fit to argue that the price which has been fixed by the L.A. Collector based on certain sale instance carrying lesser price should be taken to consideration. I, therefore find no merit in the submission made by learned counsel, Mr. Nath that the determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,00,000/- per kani was exorbitant and not based on the comparable sale instance. Since I find that there were sale instances proved by referring claimants which would show that there were transactions at the rate of Rs. 18,00,000/- per kani at the relevant point of time of the notification, the determination was correctly made. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and it stands dismissed but no cost is imposed. 5. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.