Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1984 from the judgment and the award dated 05.03.2014 delivered in Misc (L.A) 15 of 2012. 3. There is no dispute that for purpose of construction of N.F. Railways, the land measuring 0.24 acre pertaining to the plots No. 1287/2731, 1290/2275 and 1288(P) under Khatian No. 1301 of Mouja- Tepania was acquired from the appellant pursuant to the notification under No. F.9(17)-REV/ACQ/IX/2009 dated 16.12.2009. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector (L.A. Collector in short) made an award of Rs. 1,92,500/- in total. Being aggrieved thereof, the appellant pressed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said reference being Misc L.A. 15 of 2012 has been determined by the impugned judgment and award dated 05.03.2014. But the L.A. Judge did not enhance the rate of the land from what has been assessed by the L.A. Collector. The L.A. Collector for acquisition of the nal class of land in which the appellant’s land falls has given the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani whereas, for the bastu class of land he has given Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani. 5. However, by the impugned judgment and award the L. A. Judge has enhanced the damage that the appellant has suffered for trees and plants etc. to Rs. 1,35,000/-. Even the damage suffered for demolition of huts has been enhanced to Rs. 90,000/- from Rs. 65,239/- and for other huts to Rs. 20,000/- from Rs. 13,192/-. Similarly, for the damage for other constructions/attachments and one poultry farm was enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- from 19,000/-. In that regard, the appellant does not have any grievance. As the L.A. Judge did not enhance the rate of the acquired land, this appeal has been filed. L. A. App. No.26of 2014 Page 3 of 6 6. For purpose of denying enhancement, the L. A. Judge, has observed as under: “The valuation varies from Rs. 10,000,00/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The acquired land is Bastu, Viti and Nal classes of land. The deeds shows that the value of Bastu land is higher. L. A. App. No.26of 2014 Page 3 of 6 6. For purpose of denying enhancement, the L. A. Judge, has observed as under: “The valuation varies from Rs. 10,000,00/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The acquired land is Bastu, Viti and Nal classes of land. The deeds shows that the value of Bastu land is higher. Out of 24 satak 13 satak was Nal land and 11 satak was Bastu and Viti class of land. In the assessment note of the L.A. Collector, the value of the nal land assessed Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani and value of the Bastu land assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per kani. It was decided after consulting the valuation chart and seven numbers of deeds. So, this L.A. Court do not consider to interfere with the decision of the L.A. Collector.” 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the Land Acquisition Collector, it appears from the assessment sheet, as submitted with the reference, had considered the 7 sale deeds which however, lack close proximity with the land acquired. For purpose of reference, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel has referred to the table prepared and extracted in the assessment sheet which is as under: Sl. No. Sale Deed No. Class Area in acres Rate per kani Date of Reg. 1. 1-1784 Chara 0.10 Rs. 2,40,000/- 10.11.09 2. 1-1938 Bastu 0.06 Rs. 10,00,000/- 07.12.09 3. 1-1850 Chara 0.04 Rs. 80,000/- 23.11.09 4. 1-1903 Bastu 0.10 Rs. 6,00,000/- 30.11.09 5. 1-986 Lunga 0.10 Rs. 1,00,000/- 08.06.09 6. 1-989 Nal 0.20 Rs. 60,000/- 08.06.09 7. 1-1596 Bastu 0.10 Rs. 5,00,000/- 07.10.09 8. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed his reliance on the land valuation chart prepared for purpose of the land-transfer contending that this land valuation chart is the statutory chart made for purpose of determining the registration fee observance of the same is mandatory. The land valuation chart as relied by the L. A. Collector so far the acquired land is concerned is as under: Sl. No. Name of Mouja R/S Plot No. Bastu Viti Nal Lunga Tilla Dokan Other 7. Tepania 404- 429, 575- 711, 712- 1412, 1576- 1651, 1669- 1740 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 9. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further pointed out at Sl. No. 7 the plots as acquired from him are referred and the approved rate is Rs. Tepania 404- 429, 575- 711, 712- 1412, 1576- 1651, 1669- 1740 10,00,000/- 10,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 9. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further pointed out at Sl. No. 7 the plots as acquired from him are referred and the approved rate is Rs. 10,00,000/- for Bastu and viti class of land and Rs. 5,00,000/- for nal class of land. Mr. Banerjee, learned cousnel has submitted that the L. A. Collector has considered several factors but did not give any reason why he had not given the said rate as recorded in the said land valuation chart. 10. According to Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that out of the total land measuring 0.24 acres, .11 acre is of bastu and viti class of land whereas .13 acre is of nal class of land. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that these are the expected rate by the Government for purpose of revenue, this cannot be totally relied on. But the actual transaction are reflected in the sale deeds as considered by the L.A. Collector. 11. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has however submitted that the claimant had not introduced any sale deed even though he has filed one petition for adducing additional evidence, but there is no evidentiary material that either the judgment and award or the sale deed that he has sought to introduce as the additional evidence can in any manner relatable to the acquired land. 12. Be that as it may, this Court does not find the material as proposed to be introduced as additional evidence as those are not relevant for adjudication of the appeal. However, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that by a scientific method the land valuation chart is prepared and that cannot be brushed aside by some inconsequential land transfers. The land valuation chart specifically provides the rate against the surveyed plots recorded in the Khatian of the appellant. There is no dispute that Sl. No. 7 of the land valuation chart reflects the plots acquired from the appellant. 13. The land valuation chart specifically provides the rate against the surveyed plots recorded in the Khatian of the appellant. There is no dispute that Sl. No. 7 of the land valuation chart reflects the plots acquired from the appellant. 13. Having regard to that, this Court is of the view that the rate as given by the L.A. Collector appears to be very low and accordingly the rate as reflected in the land valuation chart is accepted subject to deduction at 20% as the development cost on average. 14. Having observed thus, the rate for nal class of land would be Rs. 5,00,000/- on deduction of 20% for development and for the bastu class of land, the rate would be Rs. 10,00,000/- on deduction of 20% for development. Such rate shall be taken as the basis for determination of the compensation to be given to the appellant. 15. It is needless to say, the appellant shall be entitled to 12% as the additional compensation under Section 23 (IA) of the L.A. Act and the solatium @ 30% in terms of Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act. Both the additional compensation and the solatium will carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The other damages as determined by the L.A. Judge shall remain unaltered. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. Draw the award accordingly and send down the LCRs thereafter.