JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is directed against judgment and award dated 05.03.2014, passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, Khowai, West Tripura in case No. Misc. L.A. 37 of 2011. 2. Heard learned State counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned State counsel, Mr. Majumder appearing for the appellant very fairly and candidly submits that this case is well covered by the judgment of this court dated 05.10.2016 passed in L.A. App. No.72 of 2013 and some other connected L.A. Appeals and Cross-Objections. It is further submitted that all the appeals as well as cross-objections were dismissed by this Court by the said judgment dated 05.10.2016 and the present appeal is well covered by that judgment. 4. I have gone through the judgment challenged in this appeal and the materials placed on record. I am of the view that under the same notification and same purpose the land was acquired for which L.A. App. No.72 of 2013 and other appeals and cross-objections were registered and those were disposed of. The relevant finding recorded in that appeal has been discussed in paragraphs 15 to 28 which read as follows: “15. There was no dispute regarding the quantum and classification of land acquired under the Notification. The first case decided by learned L.A. Judge was Case No. Misc.(LA) 33 of 2011 by Judgment dated 26.04.2013, challenging which L.A. Appeal No.72 of 2013 has been filed by the referring claimants and Cross Objection No.30 of 2013 preferred by the requiring department. In that case in respect of acquisition of viti class of land classified in Block-A, the learned L.A. Judge awarded compensation @ Rs.13,13,850/per kani. Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence in that case. The referring claimants relied on a sale deed No.11120 dated 19.07.2002, whereunder viti class of land was transacted @ Rs.26,27,700/- per kani. The L.A. Collector adduced oral evidence by examining one witness, but no sale deed was exhibited. 16. Taking into account that sale instance dated 19.07.2002, which was marked as Exbt.4, the learned L.A. Judge fixed the compensation for the viti class of land @ Rs.13,13,850/- per kani after making 50% deduction from the price which was obtained by the exemplar deed. 16. Taking into account that sale instance dated 19.07.2002, which was marked as Exbt.4, the learned L.A. Judge fixed the compensation for the viti class of land @ Rs.13,13,850/- per kani after making 50% deduction from the price which was obtained by the exemplar deed. On perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the parties, I find that the referring claimants examined the vendor of that deed and in his cross-examination he admitted that the land of the exemplar deed was of higher value than that of the acquired land. OPW, i.e., the witness examined on behalf of the L.A. Collector, stated that the location of the acquired land is adjacent to the Kalyanpur market. Taking into account that the location of the acquired land adjacent to Kalyanpur market, the learned L.A. Judge fixed the compensation after making deduction from the price obtained by the exemplar deed since the land of the exemplar deed is located inside the market. 17. Judgment dated 20.12.2013 in all the other reference cases was passed by the learned L.A. Judge simply referring to the judgment dated 26.04.2013 passed in Case No. Misc.(LA) 33 of 2011. In that common judgment learned L.A. Judge has observed that the determination of compensation as made by his predecessor in the judgment dated 26.04.2013 for the viti class of land of Block ‘A’ Item No.1 was rightly made, which was enhanced 3 times than that what was fixed by the L.A. Collector and taking into account that ratio of 3 times enhanced rate, he has enhanced the compensation 3 times for other items of land, i.e., Item Nos.2 and 3 of Block ‘A’ and all items of Block ‘B’ classes of land. 18. As I find, in all the other cases, which were disposed of by judgment dated 20.12.2013, two sale instances were proved on behalf of the referring claimants and those were marked as Exbt.2 and Exbt.3. Exbt.2 is the same sale deed No.11120 dated 19.07.2002, which was relied by the referring claimants in Case No. Misc.(LA) 33 of 2011 and on the basis of which judgment dated 26.04.2013 was passed. Exbt.1 is an agreement and that should be ignored. Exbt.3 is another sale deed No.11127 dated 05.07.1999 and that deed shows transaction @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani. Exbt.2 is the same sale deed No.11120 dated 19.07.2002, which was relied by the referring claimants in Case No. Misc.(LA) 33 of 2011 and on the basis of which judgment dated 26.04.2013 was passed. Exbt.1 is an agreement and that should be ignored. Exbt.3 is another sale deed No.11127 dated 05.07.1999 and that deed shows transaction @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani. In those set of cases L.A. Collector also proved one sale instance No.11363 dated 31.08.2004 and it was @ Rs.4,00,000/- per kani. 19. It is a constitutional mandate that adequate compensation as per the prevailing market rate should be paid to the land holders for compulsory acquisition of land. It is also a settled position of law that if there are several exemplars, the highest price obtained by the exemplar deed shall be paid to the land holders. 20. The acquisition was made for the purpose of construction of bridge and approach road over Khowai river at Mouja Kalyanpur and it is adjacent to Kalyanpur market. From the assessment note of the L.A. Collector it is clear that the land acquired under the Notification were adjacent to the market and the plots immediate to the road were of higher value than that of the plots at the back side. There were lands classified as Lunga, Doba, Balurchar etc. which were of very inferior classes of land. The L.A. Collector placed a copy of the map of the location and referring claimants did not produce any map. The observation made by the L.A. Collector in the Assessment Note makes it abundantly clear that the total land acquired were adjacent to market and were potential land. I would like to quote here the observation of the L.A. Collector in the Assessment Note, which reads as follows :- “..... ...... ...... The location of the proposed acquired land is just adjacent to Kalyanpur market area towards northern side of it expanded in East West direction acrossing the Khowai river covering an area of 8.552 acres. As the proposed acquired land is proximate to the market its demand from commercial point of view is very high. But the ficination/importance is not uniform/extensive throughout the area & gradually less attractive as it goes towards eastern side where the market area ends. As the proposed acquired land is proximate to the market its demand from commercial point of view is very high. But the ficination/importance is not uniform/extensive throughout the area & gradually less attractive as it goes towards eastern side where the market area ends. Thus to extend fair justice & to estimate the actual worth of land prior to notification, belting method is applied following the guideline of L.A. manuals. In order to do so the western side of plot No.3900 is identified as Block ‘A’ & apart from this the rest as Block ‘B’. The Block ‘A’ consists of plot Nos.3836/P, 3835/P. 3830/P, 3829, 3831, 3827/P, 3826, 3828, 3825, 3821, 3822/P, 3818/P, 3819/P, 3820, 3820/5189/P, 3767/P, 3768/P, 3867, 3769, 3772/P, 3842/5097/P, 3816/P, 3817, 3845, 3868, 3869/P, 3865/P, 3822/5142, 3823/P, 3850/P, 3882/P, 3883/P, 3881/P, 3870/P, 3863/P, 3850/5241/P, 3866/P, 3887/P, 3886/P, 3885/P, 3888/P, 3884, 3864/P which are comparatively highly esteemed area in comparison to Block ‘B’. Regarding collection of sale deeds, the rate of sale deed at Sl.No.1 appears reasonable/acceptable for Bastu(tilla) class of land for Block ‘A’, on the date of notification. The land of sale deed at Sl. No.3 is close to a road surpasses though the market and very adjacent to market located at a distance of 190 ft. from the land to be acquired. The area involves a small quantum the sale price of which is not representative as this type of land attracts more buyer. The lands of Block ‘B’ consists of Plot Nos. 3900/P, 3901/P, 3925/P, 3926/P, 3960/P, 3958/P, 3954/5191, 3954/5265/P, 3954/P, 3952/P, 3985/P, 3953, 3966, 3967, 3965, 3968/5102, 3963, 3964/P, 3968/P, 3966/5103/P, 3989, 3988/P, 3987/P, 3955/5441, 3955/5440, 3955/5442, 3959/P, 3963/5444/P, 3955, 3926/5467, 3926/5474, 3957/P, 3920/P, 3921 fallen on either side of the Khowai river which is mostly being used as agricultural land. The land involved in Sl. No. 2 of the deed is almost identical to the land of Block ‘B’ & therefore acceptance of this rate for Bastu (tilla) clas of land will extend fair justice to the land owners. The Block ‘A’ consists of Bastu, Bastu (tilla), Debasthan (tilla), Dokan (Tilla), viti, viti (tilla), Doba (Lunga), Lunga, Chara (Lunga), Pukurpar (Lunga), Path classes of land while Block ‘B’ Bastu (Tilla), Doba (Nal), Nal, Balurchar (Nal), Pukur (lunga), Pukurpar (tilla), Karan (tilla), classes of land. The Block ‘A’ consists of Bastu, Bastu (tilla), Debasthan (tilla), Dokan (Tilla), viti, viti (tilla), Doba (Lunga), Lunga, Chara (Lunga), Pukurpar (Lunga), Path classes of land while Block ‘B’ Bastu (Tilla), Doba (Nal), Nal, Balurchar (Nal), Pukur (lunga), Pukurpar (tilla), Karan (tilla), classes of land. The land proposed for acquisition in this proceedings is comprised of Bastu (tilla), Bastu, Dokan (Tilla), Viti, Viti (Tilla), Nal, Doba (Lunga), Dova (Nal), Lunga, Pukurpar (Lunga), Pond (Lunga), Pukurpar (Tilla), Debasthan (Tilla), Balurchar (Nal), Path, Chara (Lunga), Karan (Tilla) classes of land. The utility of land under Debasthan (Tilla), Bastu (Tilla), Viti (tilla), Bastu, Dokan (Tilla), Viti, Karan (tilla) classes of land are identical & therefore deserves compensation on similar rate. Of the rest pukur (lunga), Doba (lunga), Doba (Nal), Nal, Lunga, Pukurpar (Lunga), Pukurpar (tilla) Chara (Lunga) are grouped together & the remaining two classes Path & Balurchar (Nal) are clubbed together for determination of valuation of land. .... ..... .....” 21. The referring claimants as well as the witness of the L.A. Collector stated that acquired land, which is viti/docan viti/tilla class of land adjacent to the road, was valuable land for which L.A. Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- per kani taking into consideration the sale instance marked as Exbt.-A, whereas the exemplar deeds dated 19.07.2002 and 05.07.1999 proved by the referring claimants exhibits much higher price. 22. A map placed on record by the L.A. Collector shows that the land of exemplar deed dated 19.07.2002 is within the market area, a little away from the acquired land. The land of exemplar deed dated 05.07.1999 is also located within the same market area, but it is a little bit away and there is no evidence to show that that exemplar deed shall be taken to consideration over and above the exemplar deed dated 19.07.2002. The acquisition was made in the year 2005. So, the transaction held in the year 2002 can be taken as an exemplar deed of reasonable time. The other deed is of 1999 and the location of that deed also is not very clear in the evidence that the land of that deed was of comparable land and how much was the increase or decrease of the price, which was obtained by that deed. So, I find no justification at all to take into account the price obtained by sale deed dated 05.07.1999. So, I find no justification at all to take into account the price obtained by sale deed dated 05.07.1999. I also find no justification at all to consider the sale instance proved by the L.A. Collector dated 31.08.2004 since it is of very low price. 23. Learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder insisted that the land of sale instance of Exbt.A was the acquired land itself. Anyway, the learned L.A. Judge has determined compensation taking into account a sale instance dated 19.07.2002, which is within the market and according to the witnesses the land of that deed was of superior quality and so, the learned L.A. Judge made 50% deduction. 24. The acquired land is adjacent to market, but not within the market itself and to make it fit for dokan viti class of commercial land much effort ought to be made. Therefore, in my considered opinion, deduction of 50% from the price obtained by deed dated 19.07.2002 cannot be all together said to be an incorrect approach made by learned L.A. Judge. While the price of viti class of land has been increased 3 times, the other acquired land similarly have been increased 3 times by judgment dated 20.12.2013 and that principle cannot be said to be all together a wrong principle adopted by the learned L.A. Judge. Learned counsel, Mr. R. Debnath submitted that the price obtained by the highest exemplar deed ought to have been given without any deduction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. R. Debnath. 25. As I find in the judgment dated 20.12.l2013 in respect of the plot of land of Case No. Misc.(LA) 41 of 2011, the learned L.A. Judge wrongly mentioned it as Doba(Lunga) class of land, but it should be Viti(Tilla) class of land. 26. In my considered opinion, the award made by the learned L.A. Judge in respect of the acquired land was justified and so, it does not call for any interference. All the appeals and Cross Objections accordingly stand dismissed. 27. Parties to bear their own costs. 28. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.” 5. In my considered opinion, the award made by the learned L.A. Judge in respect of the acquired land was justified and so, it does not call for any interference. All the appeals and Cross Objections accordingly stand dismissed. 27. Parties to bear their own costs. 28. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.” 5. Since it is an admitted position that the present case is covered by the earlier judgment in view of the finding recorded above, the present appeal also has the same fate and accordingly it stands dismissed. 6. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this order. 7. A copy of that judgment be placed on record.