JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There is no representation for the respondent No. 3 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 17.06.2016 by the Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati, Udaipur, in Misc. (L.A.) No. 82 of 2014. 3. Mr. A. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has at the outset submitted that the mode of determining the rate of the acquired land is entirely faulty and against the settled principles of law in respect of comparable sale instance. According to Mr. Dey, learned counsel the Land Acquisition Judge by relying the sale-deed No. 1-103 dated 13.01.2010 has committed a serious error inasmuch as the said land has recorded an exorbitant price, if compared with the other sale instances as produced by the referring-claimants. However, Mr. Dey, learned counsel has admitted fairly that the market value has been determined for the said land by way of deduction at the rate of 75% following the principles as enunciated by the apex court in Administrator General, West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 and Subh Ram and Others vs. Haryana State and Another, (2010) 1 SCC 444 . Mr. Dey, learned counsel was tenacious to contend repeatedly that selection of the sale instance is grossly wrong, inasmuch as while examining the said deed, the land acquisition collector had observed as follows: “Land of Deed No. A i.e. sale-deed No. 1-103 dated 13.01.2010 which has produced by the landowner (sic.) as evidence of their claim cannot be taken into consideration towards fixing rate of land proposed to be acquired, because the transaction seems to be registered at a unjustified rate and may be intentionally.” That was not noticed or overlooked. 4. Mr. Dey, learned counsel has further submitted that the sale-deed dated 13.01.2010 is also a sale instance for a land measuring .04 acre whereas the land that has been acquired measures 0.62 acre. Thus, those are not comparable. A very small quantity of land, such as .04 acre as in the case in hand cannot be compared with the vast tract of land measuring 0.62 acre. According to Mr. Thus, those are not comparable. A very small quantity of land, such as .04 acre as in the case in hand cannot be compared with the vast tract of land measuring 0.62 acre. According to Mr. Dey, learned counsel even the deduction has been made whimsically. Only when the land can be compared then after considering the standard of the land and the requirement of development, such deduction can be made to adjust and have the appropriate rate. 5. From the other side, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimants has submitted that that was not the only deed which was placed in the evidence by the referring-claimants in support of their claim to have Rs. 30 lakhs per kani. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that two other sale-deeds were introduced. One being the sale-deed No. 2820 dated 21.12.2006 shows the land value at the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per kani for a land measuring .06 acre, where as another sale-deed No. 1-10 demonstrates the land rate at Rs. 10 lakhs per kani for a land measuring .04 acre. Further, the sale-deed No. 1-11 demonstrate the land rate at Rs. 4,50,000/- for a land measuring .36 acre. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has thus submitted that if all the deeds are taken into account and appreciated then it would be apparent that the Land Acquisition Judge did not commit any mistake and he has determined a reasonable price for the land as acquired from the referring-claimants under the notification No. F.9(2)- REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 28.01.2010 for construction of railway line from Agartala to Sabroom under mouja Uttarchandrapur under Udaipur Sub-Division. 6. It is not also in dispute that the land measuring .66 acre has been acquired from the referring-claimants and the Land Acquisition Collector had determined the award based on the land rate at Rs. 1,96,000/- per kani. 7. Being aggrieved thereof, the referring-claimants pressed for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to get a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs per kani. As discussed above, both the referring-claimants and the land acquisition judge adduced the oral and documentary evidence. The referring- claimants adduced four sale instances being the sale-deed No. 1-120, the sale-deed No. 1-10, the sale-deed No. 1-11 and the sale-deed No. 1-103 (all marked as Exbt.1 Series). That apart, they have adduced the map of mouja Chandrapur. As discussed above, both the referring-claimants and the land acquisition judge adduced the oral and documentary evidence. The referring- claimants adduced four sale instances being the sale-deed No. 1-120, the sale-deed No. 1-10, the sale-deed No. 1-11 and the sale-deed No. 1-103 (all marked as Exbt.1 Series). That apart, they have adduced the map of mouja Chandrapur. From perusal of the deeds, it appears that except the plot number as described in sale-deed No. 1-103 none of the plots which were under transaction in those sale-deeds (Exbt.1 series) has close proximity with the acquired land. 8. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel, this court finds that the bone of contention is the selection of the sale exemplar and the mode of determining the land rate. True it is that having perused the rate of different deeds, even those were produced by the referring- claimants, it appears that the deed No. 1-103 (Exbt.1 series) is the odd deed as it carries exorbitant rate at Rs. 30 lakhs per kani. Even if the contention of Mr. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that deeds have been executed between the relatives of the referring-claimants for purpose of garnering undue advantage from the land acquisition proceeding is discarded, then also the said deed does not appear to be comparable for purpose of determining the rate of the acquired land for two reasons viz. (i) The deed has been executed on the day which is very close to the date of publishing of the acquisition notification. (ii) The quantum of the land that is under transaction is very small and that small land cannot be compared with a big tract of land deed measuring .66 acre. 9. The most comparable deed according to this court is deed No. 1-11 for the reason that the transaction made by the said deed was for a land measuring .36 acre. The land that was, transferred by the sale-deed No. 1-11 did also belong to ‘nal’ class of land. If these two deeds are compared, even though, the land is not very proximate but a realistic rate can be gathered. Since the said land measuring .36 acre was sold at Rs. 4,50,000/- the rate would come at Rs. 5 lakh per kani. If these two deeds are compared, even though, the land is not very proximate but a realistic rate can be gathered. Since the said land measuring .36 acre was sold at Rs. 4,50,000/- the rate would come at Rs. 5 lakh per kani. Looking at the position of the land it transpires that one is the plot No. 918 whereas the acquired land is comprised in the plot No. 618 of the said mouja. The distance and the advantage would be variable from location. 10. Thus, keeping due regard to the location of the land and the acceleration of the rate in the rural areas at 10% this court is of the view that if the land rate is determined at Rs. 6 lakhs per kani that would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the land rate is decided at Rs. 6 lakhs per kani for the acquired land. The compensation has to be calculated on the basis of the said rate. The referring-claimants respondents would get the value of the land at Rs. 6 lakhs per kani. Along with that, they would get the additional compensation at 12% under section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium at the rate of 30%. It is further made clear that on the compensation, the referring-claimants would get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, meaning on expiry of one year, the interest would be 15% till the payment is made. It is further made clear that the solatium would carry interest from the date of taking possession till the payment is made in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The entire enhanced amount shall be paid within a period of 3(three) months from the date when a copy of this judgment and decree shall be available to the appellant and the respondent No. 4. 11. In the result, this appeal stands partly allowed. 12. Draw the decree accordingly.