JUDGMENT & ORDER : Both the appeals were taken up together for hearing on the prayer of both side since out of acquisition of land under same Notification, same Mouja and same purpose, the appeals have been preferred. 2. Heard learned counsel, Ms. P. Deb Paul for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has chosen to remain absent. 3. By Notification No. F.9(1)/Rev/VIII/98 dated 05.05.1998 issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 followed by declaration of even number dated 28.05.1998, land measuring 2.877 acres at Mouja Boxanagar belonging to the appellants and some other land holders were acquired and in due course LA Collector by assessment order dated 13.07.1998 fixed compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per kani. In the process, land measuring 0.21 acres of Bagan (Tilla) class of land belonging to the appellants of LA Appeal No.48/2009 and land measuring 0.72 acres of same class belonging to the appellants of LA Appeal No. 49/2009 were acquired. As it appears, the acquired lands in both the cases were of Khatian No. 300, Plot No.2511/P. Though the land of same Khatian and same plot was acquired from the same land holders but separate cases were registered by the LA Collector and compensations were paid. The appellants received the compensation under protest and on their prayer made under Section 18 of the LA Act, the LA Collector made reference to the LA Judge and accordingly, case No. Misc. LA 01/2008 and Misc. LA 02/2008 were registered before the LA Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura. 4. In course of trial, the referring claimants submitted claim statements and the respondents submitted counter statements and thereafter, in case No. Misc. LA 01/2008 one of the referring claimant, namely, Abdul Rashid examined himself as PW1 and he presented two sale instances which have been mentioned in his examination-in-chief but those were not marked as exhibits. Those two sale deeds were sale deed No. 1-1229 dated 24.07.2001 and sale deed No. 1-1759 dated 22.11.2001. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. Order dated 21.07.2009 shows that the Opposite Party No.1, i.e. the requiring department, the respondent No.1 herein, produced two sale instances and those were marked as exhibit A series. Those two sale instances were sale deed No.1-232 dated 26.02.1998 and sale deed No. 1-40 dated 08.01.1998. 5. In Case No. Misc. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. Order dated 21.07.2009 shows that the Opposite Party No.1, i.e. the requiring department, the respondent No.1 herein, produced two sale instances and those were marked as exhibit A series. Those two sale instances were sale deed No.1-232 dated 26.02.1998 and sale deed No. 1-40 dated 08.01.1998. 5. In Case No. Misc. LA 02/2008, the referring claimants namely, Khagendra Debnath and Dilip Debnath examined themselves as PWs 1 & 2 and they also referred to the same two sale deeds dated 24.07.2001 and 22.11.2001 but those were also not marked as exhibits. The respondents, i.e. the requiring department and the LA Collector did not adduce any oral evidence but on behalf of the respondent No.1, i.e. the requiring department, two sale deeds were produced vide sale deed No.1-232 of 1998 dated 26.02.1998 and sale deed No.1-40 of 1998 dated 08.01.1998 and were marked as exhibit A Series. 6. Learned LA Judge, by separate judgments dated 18.08.2009 disposed of both the reference cases observing that the compensation awarded by the LA Collector was justified. 7. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel Ms. P. Deb Paul submitted that the acquired land of 0.21 acres of case No. Misc. LA 01/2008 which relates to LA Appeal 48/2009 was purchased by one of the appellant by a registered deed No.1-1341 dated 19.12.1995 at a price of Rs.40,000/-. While that land itself was purchased in the year 1995 at a price of Rs.40,000/- and the acquisition was made in the year 1998, the referring claimants ought to have been paid compensation not less than the purchased price of the referring claimant. They were entitled to get compensation @ more than Rs.80 thousand per kani. She also submitted that the acquired land of both the cases were of same Mouja, same Khatian and same plot number in parts. 8. It is quite surprising that neither in the claim statement/written statement of the referring claimants nor in their examination-in-chief they uttered a single word that a part of the acquired land itself was purchased by one of the land holders in the year 1995. In the assessment order of the LA Collector, I find that the LA Collector has mentioned that Abdul Rashid appeared and produced registered sale deed No. 1-1341 dated 19.12.1995 for purchase of 0.21 acres of land at a cost of Rs.40,000/-. In the assessment order of the LA Collector, I find that the LA Collector has mentioned that Abdul Rashid appeared and produced registered sale deed No. 1-1341 dated 19.12.1995 for purchase of 0.21 acres of land at a cost of Rs.40,000/-. There is no mention of Khatian number and plot number of the land of 0.21 acres which relates to sale deed No. 1-1341 dated 19.12.1995. 9. Learned counsel, Ms. Deb Paul could not advance any satisfactory reason as to why that was not mentioned. However, she has referred to the cross-examination of the referring claimant, i.e. PW1 of Misc. LA 01/2008 wherein in the cross-examination made on behalf of the respondent No.1, i.e. the Superintendent of Archaeologist Department, Government of India, the referring claimant made a clear statement that he purchased the acquired land measuring about 0.21 acres vide registered sale deed No. 1-1341 dated 19.12.1995 at a cost of Rs.40,000/- from Anukul Ch. Das, S/o Late Rajani Kanta Das of Boxanagar. This Statement of the referring claimant came in cross-examination made on behalf of the requiring department which shows that a part of the acquired land of these two cases was purchased by Abdul Rashid in the year 1995 at a cost of about Rs.80,000/- per kani. The referring claimant did not produce that deed of purchase but has produced two other deeds of 2001 and those were not marked as exhibits by the trial court. 10. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence to show that the two sale instances produced by them were of comparable land. It appears that both side very casually conducted the case and the learned LA Judge also mechanically disposed of both the references. The documents produced by the referring claimants ought to have been marked as exhibits for the purpose of taking it into consideration. That much of duty entrusted upon the court has not been discharged. 11. Land of same khatian, same plot (in part) and same class was acquired. If a part of that land was purchased by one of the referring claimant in the year 1995 that might be a very reasonable document to ascertain the market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. 12. 11. Land of same khatian, same plot (in part) and same class was acquired. If a part of that land was purchased by one of the referring claimant in the year 1995 that might be a very reasonable document to ascertain the market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. 12. Second proviso to Article 31A prescribes that compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value shall be paid to the landholder for acquisition of land. Though there are some statements in the assessment order and in the cross-examination of PW1 of Misc. LA 01/2008 that the acquired land of Misc. LA 01/2008 was purchases by Abdul Rashid in the year 1995 at a cost of Rs.40,000/- but that purchase deed has not been produced to prove the fact. 13. Since these are cases of land acquisition and a landholder is entitled to get the price of land at market rate, I think an opportunity should be afforded to the parties to adduce appropriate evidence. No doubt burden lies on the referring claimant to prove that the compensation fixed by the LA Collector was inadequate. Here, the learned LA Judge though mentioned that in the cross-examination of PW1 of Misc. LA 01/2008 there was a statement that he purchased the acquired land at a price of Rs.40,000/- but that statement has not been considered and the sale instances produced by the referring claimants were not marked as exhibits. Learned LA Judge would or would not rely upon those sale instances but those ought to be marked as exhibits, since produced by the referring claimants. The learned LA Judge should not be in such a hurry to dispose of the case, without even marking the documents as exhibits. “Justice hurried is justice buried” is not a mere saying but is a principle which is followed by the justice delivery system. No doubt justice is to be quickly given to the litigants but that does not mean that the lisshould be disposed of at any rate even without looking into the merit of the matter and without recording the evidence in accordance with law. 14. No doubt justice is to be quickly given to the litigants but that does not mean that the lisshould be disposed of at any rate even without looking into the merit of the matter and without recording the evidence in accordance with law. 14. I think it appropriate to set aside the judgments passed by the learned LA Judge and remand the case to the court of learned LA Judge for deciding the matter afresh affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence (oral/documentary) as they may desire. 15. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, the judgment and order dated 18.01.2009 passed in Misc. LA 01/2008 and Misc. LA 02/2008 are set aside. The cases are remanded back to the learned LA Judge. The appellants and the respondent No.1, i.e. the Superintendent of Archaeologist Department, Government of India are directed to appear before the learned LA Judge, Sonamura on 05.01.2017. The learned LA Judge, Sonamura is further directed to issue notice to the LA Collector, on receipt of the records back, to appear before the learned LA Judge. The learned LA Judge, Sonamura is also directed to dispose of both the references within three months from the date of receipt of the records. 16. It is made clear that the evidence already on record should remain and the learned LA Judge will be at liberty to read that evidence in addition to the evidence which the parties may adduce after remand. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the LA Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Send back the LCRs along with a copy this judgment.