JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [the L.A. Act in short] from the judgment and award dated 26.03.2015 delivered in L.A. (REF) No. 15 of 2014 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. The referring claimant being aggrieved by the determination of the land rate has preferred this appeal. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the land rate at Rs. 18,00,000/- per kani whereas the Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced that rate to Rs. 40,00,000/- per kani. The other relevant facts are not in dispute. By the notification under No. F.9(16)-REV/ACQ/XII/10 dated 09.06.2010 arising from the notification dated 15.04.2010 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act, the acquisition of the following land was proposed: “The land measuring 0.015 acres comprised to Khatian No. 2882, R.S. Plot No. 1395/p of Mouja-Belonia.” The said land was acquired for purpose of improvement of road under Belonia Nagar Panchayet area from Ratanmani Setu to Revenue Dak Banglow. From the assessment sheet, it can be gathered that a serious exercise was taken by the L.A. Collector for determining the market value of the acquired land. It appears that for the said land, a total compensation of Rs. 96,808/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector on considering the all components as delineated under Section 23 of the L.A. Act. The acquired land is admittedly a ‘Bastu’ class of land. The due compensation was quantified on the following heads:- Removal cost of huts statements and machineries including pucca construction Rs. 3,828 + Rs. 72,221/- (i) For lands Rs. 67,500/- (ii) For trees and crops Rs. 2530/- (iii) Additional compensation under Section 23(2) on (1) (2), (3) 30% Solatium Rs. 20,250/- (iv) Additional compensation 12% w.e.f. 15.04.2010 to 14.08.2010 i.e. 4 months Rs. 2,700/- Aggrieved by the said quantum, the referring claimant, the appellant herein, pressed for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894. The said reference being Case No. L.A. (REF) No. 15 of 2014 has been determined by the judgment dated 26.03.2015 which is under challenge in this appeal. The L.A. Judge having recorded the evidence and appreciated the evidentiary materials has observed that the land value being inappropriate calls for interference. The said reference being Case No. L.A. (REF) No. 15 of 2014 has been determined by the judgment dated 26.03.2015 which is under challenge in this appeal. The L.A. Judge having recorded the evidence and appreciated the evidentiary materials has observed that the land value being inappropriate calls for interference. By discarding the rate as asserted by the referring claimant at Rs. 90,00,000/- per kani, the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the land value at Rs. 40,00,000/- per kani and enhanced the removal cost to Rs. 1,00,000/- for damage of the construction in place of Rs. 76,049/-. But the referring claimant is still not satisfied and has challenged that judgment and award. 3. Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the land situates in the commercial hub and would appear from the assessment sheet of the L.A. Collector where that has observed that the proposed land is partly commercial and partly residential land. Ms. Sen, learned counsel has further contended that by discarding the sale deed No. 1-801 dated 30.05.2008, the L.A. Judge has caused miscarriage of justice. The sale deed (Exbt.1 series) shows that a land measuring .0004 decimals was sold at Rs. 1,50,000/- meaning @ Rs. 90,00,000/- per kani. Ms. Sen, learned counsel has submitted that there had been an attempt to acquire the said land by the respondents on earlier occasion also but by the notification under No. F.4(3)-DM/LA/S/B/2009/4410-556 dated 20.04.2010 the said acquisition was withdrawn. By that time, the appellant had vacated the acquired land. On making payment, the possession was supposed to be taken. Before the possession was formerly taken, the said acquisition was withdrawn but the due process of determining the land rate had culminated to its finality. The L.A. Collector had by that exercise decided the rate much higher than the present rate and hence, the total compensation came to Rs. 2,20,820/- only for a quantum of land measuring 0.01 acres whereas in the present acquisition much higher quantum of land measuring 0.015 acres has been acquired and for that, the total compensation has come down to Rs. 1,69,029/- but in the award, it has been shown as Rs. 96,808/-. The said award is not corrected at any point of time. 2,20,820/- only for a quantum of land measuring 0.01 acres whereas in the present acquisition much higher quantum of land measuring 0.015 acres has been acquired and for that, the total compensation has come down to Rs. 1,69,029/- but in the award, it has been shown as Rs. 96,808/-. The said award is not corrected at any point of time. Thus, it shows that the said L.A. Collector has deliberately considered the rate at the lower side and such rate is not the real value in terms of the market rate and hence, it is liable to be interfered with. Ms. Sen, learned counsel has further added that the L.A. Collector has also failed to take into consideration the real market rate as is reflected in the sale deed [Exbt.1]. The rate should have been closer to Rs. 90,00,000/- per kani. 4. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the land demised in the sale deed [Exbt.1] cannot be compared with the land of the referring claimants inasmuch as the said land was a Dokan Viti, meaning entirely a commercial space. That apart, Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. referring to the assessment note as prepared by the L.A. Collector has submitted that the land of Bastu class as sold out by various sale deeds during the last part of 2009 would show that the land rate is between Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- and thus, the rate of Rs. 18,00,000/- awarded by the L.A. Collector cannot be treated as unrealistic. Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has further submitted that conversion the class of land to a Dokan Viti by way of claim statement cannot be believed by this court inasmuch in the application for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act the referring claimant himself has stated as follows: “That the objector is the owner and possessor of those entire specifically demarcated 2 gandas equivalent to 0.040 acres of land, situated within the Belonia Tow Mouja comprises in Khatian 2882 and stated in CS (New) Plot No. 1395, the classification of which is a dwelling house.” 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has submitted that later on to match with the sale deed that the said classification has been recalibrated in the claim statement which the court should ignore because the statement of objection is the primary basis of reference. That apart, Mr. Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has submitted that later on to match with the sale deed that the said classification has been recalibrated in the claim statement which the court should ignore because the statement of objection is the primary basis of reference. That apart, Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has submitted that after the rate of Rs. 40,00,000/- per kani as awarded by the impugned judgment, the referring claimant cannot have any grievance at all. He should have been satisfied, but still he is not satisfied. Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has finally submitted that a small amount of land has been acquired and the due rate has been granted. Even other components of compensation have been duly considered and given. He has supported the judgment as the appropriate government has not filed any appeal against the same. 6. Having considered the contentions as projected before this court and appreciated the evidence on record, this court is of the view that from the beginning statement of the L.A. Collector that the acquired land is partly commercial and partly residential, it can be gathered that this land is highly potential for the commercial use. The land in the comparable sale deeds as relied in the assessment note may not be of the same potential. Be that as it may, the damage given for the removal cost of huts and machineries including the pucca construction by the L.A. Judge, according to this court, is adequate inasmuch as in the evidence there is no detail or any assessment by the expert in respect of the damage. For this purpose, this court has revisited the deposition of PW-1, the referring claimant, where he has stated that on the land, there were fruit bearing trees. As such, it cannot be clearly held that the land was not formed as the commercial land. In Para-10 of the examination-in-chief, the referring claimant has stated that in the meeting convened by the L.A. Collector before passing the award, he claimed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- but that was not awarded and thus, he is aggrieved. Even there is no description in respect of the damage to the existing construction, tress and other fixtures on the acquired land. In such a situation, the L.A Collector as well as the L.A. Judge have exercised their discretion and determined the loss under Section 23(1) of the L.A. Act finally at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Even there is no description in respect of the damage to the existing construction, tress and other fixtures on the acquired land. In such a situation, the L.A Collector as well as the L.A. Judge have exercised their discretion and determined the loss under Section 23(1) of the L.A. Act finally at Rs. 1,00,000/-. This court does not find any reason to interfere with that. However, so far the land value is concerned, it appears that the land is situated along the road. It has its commercial potential. There can be no doubt that it, therefore, has its commercial value. Hence, the land would not have been compared with the ordinary Bastu class of land. Even the L.A. Collector has acceded to the said fact. Hence, this court is of the view that the market value is required to be further enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/- per kani. Accordingly, the compensation be deduced afresh in terms of Section 23 of the L.A. Act. 7. Admittedly, the notification under Section 17 of the L.A. Act was issued on 15.04.2010 but there is no proof of taking possession. If the land was taken into possession on 14.08.2010, there was no error in deducing the additional compensation else this should be duly modified at the time of calculating the compensation. In sum, the respondents shall calculate the compensation by granting the cost of damages at Rs. 1,00,000/- for land. The other component shall be calculated on the basis of Rs. 50,00,000/- per kani. This court is not interfering with the cost of trees. The solatium shall be paid @ 30% on the land value. It is finally observed that the entire compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, the said amount shall carry interest @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year till the payment is made in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act. It is further clarified that the solatium shall carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act. The respondents are directed to pay the entire enhanced award after making deduction of the amount that has been paid within a period of 3[three] months from the day of issuing the decree (award). 8. In terms of the above, this appeal stands partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the entire enhanced award after making deduction of the amount that has been paid within a period of 3[three] months from the day of issuing the decree (award). 8. In terms of the above, this appeal stands partly allowed. Prepare the decree (award) accordingly. 9. Send down the LCRs thereafter.