JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P.B. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.2, despite due notice from this Court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and award dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc.(LA)78/2010. 3. There is no dispute that from the appellant, for the purpose of construction of ONGC drill site and waste pit at location KUAC under Sadar Sub-Division in West Tripura District in Mouja Indranagar, Sheet No.2(5)P, a piece of land measuring 0.40 acres of Nal class appertaining to plot No.6065/P, Mouja Indranagar, Sheet No.2(5)P, Khatian No.4962 was acquired by dint of notification under No.F.9(10)-REV/ACQ/VI/2005 dated 14.12.2005. The LA Collector determined the compensation under Section 23 of the LA Act on the basis of the land rate at Rs.1,00,000/- per kani, i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for Nal class of land. Being aggrieved by such determination under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant herein pressed a reference under Section 18(1) of t he Land Acquisition Act for fresh determination of the land rate so that she can get just compensation for losing her land in the public interest. The Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.3) by the impugned judgment and award dated 26.08.2013 has enhanced the rate from Rs.1,00,000/- per kani to Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. But the appellant is not satisfied and preferred this appeal against the said finding. 4. Mr. D.R. Choufhury, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge while passing the impugned judgment has failed to follow the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 271. In that decision, the Apex Court held that highest comparable exemplar shall be accepted for determining the compensation. The highest comparable exemplar does not imply or mean that whatever the exemplar is submitted by the referring claimant has to be accepted by the Collector or the Court. Exemplar has to be determined having regard to the location of the acquired land, nature of the acquired land and the size of the acquired land as well. The highest comparable exemplar does not imply or mean that whatever the exemplar is submitted by the referring claimant has to be accepted by the Collector or the Court. Exemplar has to be determined having regard to the location of the acquired land, nature of the acquired land and the size of the acquired land as well. That apart, the factor of contemporaneity has to be assessed for accepting any exemplar for applying for purpose of having the market rate of the acquired land. 5. Mr. P.B. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that for the land acquired under the same notification and for the same project there were several appeals before this Court and some of the appeals including LA App.51/2013 (Sri Abinash Chandra Sarkar Vs. In-Charge, HR-ER and Anr.) and etc. were decided by the judgment dated 28.07.2016 and as such this appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment. In the said judgment dated 28.07.2016, it has been observed as under: “11. In my opinion, the L.A. Collector as well as learned L.A. Judge was supposed to consider the price of “Bastu” class of land which was situated only 90 feet away from the acquired land and making certain reasonable deduction towards development charges would determine the compensation for the acquired land. A “Nal” class of land can be easily developed as a “Bastu” class of land by earth filling and making some sorts of other development works. So, for such development maximum we can deduct 75% of the total price which was availed by the sale-deed dated 24.09.2003. Since that sale-deed carries a price of Rs.20,00,000/- per kani, we may deduct 75% of the sum towards development and in my considered opinion, the acquired land may be valued @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. So, taking into account the potentiality of the land in the locality, I think the compensation may be awarded for the “Nal” class of land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani.” Mr. Dhar, learned counsel has submitted that this Court has determined the rate of Nal class of land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani and, therefore, there can be no different rate for the land of the appellant. 6. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel has submitted that this Court has determined the rate of Nal class of land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani and, therefore, there can be no different rate for the land of the appellant. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has however made a robust endeavour to contend that the appellant’s land is attached with additional advantages than of the lands those are covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2016 but this Court having carried out a serious scrutiny could not find any distinguishable material by dint of which the referred advantage can be located and determined and hence the proposition as advanced by Mr. Choudhury cannot be accepted. As such, this Court is of the view that this case is also covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2016. 7. The appellant shall instead of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge be entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- per kani, meaning Rs.12,50,000/- per acre. It is clearly made out that on the basis of the said rate the appellant shall be entitled to additional compensation @ 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. That apart, the appellant shall be entitled to get interest in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act on the solatium and on the additional compensation. 8. In terms of the above, the appeal is allowed. Draw the award accordingly. Send back the records thereafter.