JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This land acquisition appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura Agartala in Case No. Civil Misc. (LA) 298 of 2012 whereby and where under learned LA Judge has awarded compensation considering market price of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,26,000/- per kani. 2. Being aggrieved the appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal. 3. Briefly stating a land measuring 0.07 acres was acquired by the L.A. Collector, West Tripura vide notification No. F.9(18)-REV/ACQ/XIV/2004 dated 26.04.2004 for construction of by-pass road from Khayerpur to Amtali under Mouja Anandanagar. The L.A. Collector has assessed the market price of the land in question @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani and, accordingly, awarded Rs.35,000/- for the acquired land. On reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act during the course of proceeding before the learned L.A. Judge, the claimant-land looser as well as the L.A. Collector and the requiring Department have filed their respective statements. Having adduced their respective evidence before the learned L.A. Judge and on consideration of evidence on record and all other incidental aspects the learned L.A. judge has enhanced the rate of compensation considering the market price @ Rs. 3,26,000/- per kani. 4. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Central Government Counsel as well as Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-land looser. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellant-Union of India submits that the learned L.A. Judge has committed an error in assessing the market price at the relevant point of time @ Rs. 3, 26,000/- without taking into account the sale instances marked as Exbt-A & B series. 5. During the course of the proceeding the learned judge has considered the judgments and award passed in Misc. (LA) 04/09, Misc. (LA) 05/09 and Misc. (LA) 07/09 dated 07.12.2011 passed by the same Court on the basis of similar and identical sale instances i.e. Exbt 1 & 2 as well as Exbt- A & B series. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC before this Court could not distinguish the fact of those cases with the fact of the instant appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in those cases the land in question under acquisition also falls under Mouja Anandanagar having similar potentiality and advantage and as such, the learned LA. On the other hand, Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in those cases the land in question under acquisition also falls under Mouja Anandanagar having similar potentiality and advantage and as such, the learned LA. Judge enhanced the market price of the land from Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani to Rs. 3,26,000/- per kani. 6. In the appeal before this Court Mr. Paul, learned counsel on being asked could not submit any documents that the judgment passed by the learned LA Judge in the connected L.A. cases were interfered by this Court. 7. I have perused the findings and reasonings given by the learned L.A. Judge in his judgment and award dated 29.06.2015, wherein he has discussed the proximity and potentiality of the land in question and, according to me, the consideration of market price @ Rs. 3,26,000/- per kani is not unreasonable and hence the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by learned L.A. Judge is therefore affirmed. Send back the L.C.Rs.