JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This land acquisition appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, L.A. Act) is directed against the judgment dated 08.01.2016 and award dated 11.01.2016, passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Misc.(L.A.)79 of 2010. 2. Heard Mr. A.L.Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-ONGC as well as Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.7 i.e. the L.A. Collector. 3. A land measuring 0.85 acres classified as ‘Nal’ was acquired by the respondent No.7, L.A. Collector, West Tripura for the purpose of construction of ONGC Drill site of West Pit at location KUAC, under Sadar Sub Division in West Tripura District vide notification No.F.9(10)-REV/ACQ/VI/2005 dated 14.12.2005. The L.A. Collector has assessed the value of the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per Kani for ‘Nal’ class of land along with other statutory benefits. 4. Being aggrieved by, the claimant-respondents had sought for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Being referred, the learned L.A. Judge issued summons to the parties and during the course of proceedings, the claimants, the L.A. Collector, West Tripura District and the requiring department ONGC have submitted their respective statement of claims. They have adduced their respective evidence. The claimant-respondents have relied upon two sale instances which were marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2. 5. The L.A. Collector as well as ONGC have also taken into evidence four sale instances which were marked as Exhibit-A, B, C & Exhibit-D. 6. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned L.A. Judge has enhanced the amount to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kani from Rs.2,50,000/- per Kani as awarded by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura District. 7. I have perused the findings of the learned L.A. Judge. Learned L.A. Judge in Para 13 of the judgment has described the reasons for such enhancement which is reproduced below as verbatim. “13. But on perusal of the Claim statement and the counter statement of O.P. No.2, that the acquired land has already developed and could be used as commercial or residential plot. Therefore the price of the land should be assessed on the higher side not on the lower side. Because the O.P.No.2 has already stated in their counter statement that the acquired land is situated at Indranagar Village which is adjoining to Agartala Town and urbanization is progressing. Therefore the price of the land should be assessed on the higher side not on the lower side. Because the O.P.No.2 has already stated in their counter statement that the acquired land is situated at Indranagar Village which is adjoining to Agartala Town and urbanization is progressing. As a result there is strong demand for land suitable for construction of house site. Considering the evidence on record it is found that the acquired land is a nal class of land and the sale deeds which have been submitted by both the parties, the land of the sale deed No.1-8511 dated 24.9.2003 is nearer to the acquired land though classification of the said land is bastu class of land and the value of sale deed with reference to the similar land in comparism(sic) with the acquired land is @Rs.20,00,000/-per kani is in the higher side. But the potential value of viti and nall class of land are not similar. Therefore, it is presumed that the potential value of the acquired land is the half of the viti class of land. Therefore, considering the entire evidence and the materials on record it is found that the sale instance which has been produced by both the parties, for consideration of the quantum of award, the consideration value of the land of the sale deed vide No.1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 is on the higher side i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- per kani and the said deed was executed on 24.09.2003 i.e about two years prior to the Notification may be considered as the highest value in respect of similar land in the locality but considering the classification of the acquired land it appears that the potential value of the acquired land is almost half on the classification of the land of the sale deed vide No.1-8511 dated 24.9.2003. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mahrawal Khewaji Trust (registered) Tridkot & Ors. Vs. Punjab & Ors. Reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 , in Para 15 of the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that— “15.It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bonafide transaction has to be considered and accepted. Reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 , in Para 15 of the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that— “15.It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bonafide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bonafide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition.” 8. From the said reasoning it is found that the learned L.A. Judge has made clear distinction between ‘Viti’ class of land and ‘Nal’ class of land. The ‘Viti’ class of land attracts Rs.20,00,000/-per kani in terms of the sale instances, Exhibit-1 & 2. The present acquired land in question being the ‘Nal’ class of land, learned L.A. Judge has reduced the price by 50% and assessed the market price of the acquired land at Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. According to me, the assessment so made by the learned L.A. Judge is not unreasonable. 9. Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-requiring department placed reliance on two decisions passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Case No. LA App. 51 of 2013 and LA App.05 of 2017 wherein, the market price was assessed at Rs.5,00,000/-per kani. 10. I have gone through the judgments, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. After going through the facts of those cases, according to me, the facts are quite different from the facts of the present case in hand. There is clear distinction in between the proximity of the land in question of this appeal and the sale instances under Exhibit-1 & 2, and the plots of land described in the judgments as referred to by Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the appellants. 11. These two judgments have led me to take into the notice of the map (Exhibit-3) produced during the course of proceedings which would determine the proximity of the present acquired land than that of the lands decided in those cases. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the appellants. 11. These two judgments have led me to take into the notice of the map (Exhibit-3) produced during the course of proceedings which would determine the proximity of the present acquired land than that of the lands decided in those cases. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis that this Court should maintain the market price as was determined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court because of the fact that the acquired land in question in the present appeal also belongs to the same mouja. I am afraid to follow the same principle as submitted by Mr. Saha, learned counsel. 12. In a land acquisition case indisputably proximity of the acquired land and the lands of the sale instances play a very vital role to determine the importance and potentiality of a land. A mouja consists of lands covering around 4 to 5 KMs. For this, the land which is situated just adjacent to the road will attract and fetch much higher price than that of the land which is far away from the land having less importance. This Court has made a query to Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant to show the proximity of the land of the sale instances marked as Exhibit A, B, C, & D compared to the land in question in this appeal. But he has failed to show and justify the proximity of the plots of those instances which were even not found in the map (Exhibit-3) before this Court. 13. The land under plot Nos. 6199 and 6201 i.e. plots under acquisition are just adjacent to a Govt. road which has been proved from the map while I do not find any of the plots belonging to the sale instances under Exhibits-A, B, C & D having similar advantage. I find the land of the plot No.6288 in the said map which is also adjacent to a Govt. road though it is a small path way compared to the Govt. road adjacent to the plot Nos.6199 and 6201 which are the lands under acquisition. 14. I am respectfully in agreement with the evaluation and decision in regard to the assessment of market price for the plots of land relating to the judgments passed in Case No. LA App. road though it is a small path way compared to the Govt. road adjacent to the plot Nos.6199 and 6201 which are the lands under acquisition. 14. I am respectfully in agreement with the evaluation and decision in regard to the assessment of market price for the plots of land relating to the judgments passed in Case No. LA App. 51 of 2013 and LA App 05 of 2017, considering the position and potentiality of those lands. 15. After careful scrutiny of the map (Exhibit-3) and the sale instances marked as Exhibits-1 & 2 as well as Exhibits-A, B, C & D, in my considered view, the plots under acquisition in this appeal will fetch higher value as these are situated just adjacent to a big Govt. road compared to the sale instances which are marked as Exhibits-A, B, C & D where I find none of the sale instances under Exhibits-A, B, C and D have advantage of any Govt. roads which is also revealed from the schedule described in the said sale instances. Apart from that Exhibit-C & D are ‘Chara’ class of land. 16. In view of the afore stated observations and discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated 08.01.2016, passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-requiring department is found to be devoid of merit. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost. 18. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.