JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. A De, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1&2. None appears for the respondent No.3 despite due notice from this Court. 2. By means of this appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the judgment and award dated 07.08.2014 delivered in Misc. (LA) 117/2010 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala has been challenged. 3. There is no dispute that by the Notification No. F.9(13)Rev/Acq/VI/98 dated 17.07.1998 under Section 4 of the LA Act and subsequent declaration of even number dated 11.08.1998 under Section 6 of the LA Act, the respondent No.3 had acquired the land of the respondent Nos. 1&2 measuring 0.03 acres of viti class of land under Mouja Singarbil, Khatian No.3392, plot No. 1670 for construction and extension of runway of Agartala Airport on the North side situated at Mouja Singarbil, under Sadar Sub-Division, West Tripura District. 4. After making inquiry under Section 11 of the LA Act, the LA Collector, the respondent No.3 herein, passed award under Section 12 of the LA Act to the extent of Rs. 40,700/- per kani. Being dis-satisfied with the award, the respondent Nos. 1&2 prayed for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act for proper and just adjudication of the market price at the time of acquisition. By the impugned judgment and award, the LA Judge has enhanced the land value to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- per kani, and that has been taken as the basis for computing the compensation under Section 23 of the LA Act. Being aggrieved by the said award, the requiring department, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel has at the outset submitted that this case is covered by a decision of this Court delivered in The Director of Airport Authority Vs. Sri Mihir Bhowmik & Ors. [judgment and order dated 29.06.2015]. Mr. De, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1&2 has conceded to the said proposition. 6. This Court had occasion to appreciate the materials before the LA Judge in respect of the same acquisition under the same Notification, and for purpose of the same project. 7. Having observed as under, this Court ordered that the land value of Rs. Mr. De, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1&2 has conceded to the said proposition. 6. This Court had occasion to appreciate the materials before the LA Judge in respect of the same acquisition under the same Notification, and for purpose of the same project. 7. Having observed as under, this Court ordered that the land value of Rs. 70,000/- per kani should be the just value for the acquired land instead of what has been awarded by the LA Judge: “[7] It is taken note of by this court that those judgments may even though not squarely cover the present appeals but would have a substantial impact as regards the determination of the land value. It would be apparent from the assessment sheet of the Land Acquisition Collector that he had considered as many as 13 sale exemplars for purpose of determining the land value. By a tabular form, the sale instances and the related informations are given as under: Sl.No. Sale Deed No. & Date Classification of land Amount of land (Rate per Kani) Distance Area of land sold (on acre) 1. 1-5254, dt. 28.09.96 Tilla Rs.11,111/- 2280 mtr. 0.90 acre 2. 1-6797 dt. 26.12.96 Bhiti, Tilla Rs.20,000/- 2000 mtr. 0.01 acre 3. 1-4257 Dt.08.08.96 Nal Rs.16,667/- 1200 mtr. 0.36 acre 4. 1-1187 dt.27.02.96 Tilla Rs.20,000/- 1920 mtr. 0.07 acre 5. 1-5254 dt.28.09.96 Tilla Rs.16,000/- 800 mtr. 0.10 acre 6. 1-877 dt.14.02.97 Nal Rs.10,000/- 700 mtr. 0.20 acre 7. 1-2092 dt.01.04.97 Nal Rs.22,222/- 1600 mtr. 0.72 acre 8. 1-16 dt. 01.01.97 Nal Rs.40,000/- 2000 mtr. 0.10 acre 9. 1-385 dt.20.01.97 Vitti, Tilla Rs.8000/- 500 mtr. 0.50 acre 10. 1-2088 dt.01.04.97 Nal Rs.28571/- 800 mtr. 0.28 acre 11. 1-452 dt. 24.01.97 Vitti, Tilla Rs.20,000/- 400 mtr. 0.06 acre 12. 1-175 dt. 08.01.97 Nal Rs.27,272/- 380 mtr. 0.44 acre 13. 1-1726 dt. 17.03.97 Tilla Rs.60,000/- 40 mtr. 0.10 acre [8]. It would be apparent that the highest sale exemplar as considered by the Land Acquisition Collection was Rs.60,000/- per kani for the tilla class of land which is just 40 mtr. away from the acquired land and that transaction had taken place on 17.11.1997 whereas the acquisition under reference had taken place on 12.11.1997 when the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published. Therefore, the sale transaction by the deed No.1-1726 dated 17.03.1997 was the close and contemporaneous one. away from the acquired land and that transaction had taken place on 17.11.1997 whereas the acquisition under reference had taken place on 12.11.1997 when the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was published. Therefore, the sale transaction by the deed No.1-1726 dated 17.03.1997 was the close and contemporaneous one. The referring claimants however have produced 3(three) sale deeds (Exbt.1 series) being sale deed No.1-7648 dated 23.10.89, where the land value is Rs.1,80,000/- per kani but the land is situated at Mouja- Rajnagar nearby Agartala town. Another sale deed being No.1-395 dated 20.01.1998 regarding transaction of a piece of land of 4(four) gandas on consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- per kani even though the said land is under Mouja- Lankamura but its boundary is along the government road. Moreover, the integrity of the sale instance cannot be perse accepted as the sale transaction had taken place immediately after the acquisition for a very small piece of land. Another sale instance being the sale deed No.1-966 dated 20.01.2006 shows that the sale transaction at Rs.2,00,000/- per kani and the said deed was executed on 20.01.2006 and the land is from different Mouja- Singarbil and thus, the said sale transaction is not comparable.” 8. It is needless to mention that with the said land value the respondent Nos.1&2 shall be entitled to 12% additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the LA Act and 30% as solatium under Section 23(2) of the LA Act. That apart, the respondent Nos. 1&2 shall also be entitled to get interest in terms of Section 34 of the LA Act including on solatium from the date of taking into possession by the appellant. 9. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The appellants are directed to make the payment of the enhanced compensation through the respondent No.3 within a period of two months from today. 10. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.