JUDGMENT : ARINDAM LODH, J. 1. The State of Tripura has presented this appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.01.2015, passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, in connection with the Case No. Misc. (LA) No. 112 of 2012. 2. Briefly stated, land measuring 0.18 acres was acquired under Plot No. 1708/4157/P, Khatian No. 1060 of Mouja-Salgarah by the L.A. Collector, under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, on urgent basis, vide notification No. F.9(8)-REV/ACQ/IX/2009, dated 07.10.2009. It was a “Nal” class of land. The L.A. Collector has assessed the valuation of the land @ Rs. 1.00 Lakh per kani. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said assessment, on the basis of an application submitted by the claimant-respondents, the dispute was referred to the learned L.A. Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur for determination of the actual market price of land. 3. After reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the claimant-respondents had filed claim statement stating inter-alia that the value of the land was fetching @ Rs. 25.00 Lakhs per kani at the time of acquisition. The claimants also have claimed Rs. 50,000/- for the loss of future agricultural income. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-L.A. Collector by filing counter written statement denied the claim and stated that adequate compensation has been awarded after considering all aspects and evidence on record. The Water Resource Division i.e. the Requiring Department also had filed their counter statement. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned L.A. Judge has framed the following issues for determination of the actual market price of the land. The issues are:- (i) Whether the petition is maintainable? (ii) Whether the compensation given by the L.A. Collector for the acquired land is adequate? (iii) Whether the referring claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation, as claimed and any other relief? 6. During the proceedings, the Claimant-respondents had produced photocopy of Sale-deeds vide Sale-deed No. 1-340, 1-2968, 1-302 and 1-2637. They also produced photocopy of the Map of Mouja Salgarah under Udaipur Sub-division in support of their claim. After comparing with the certified copy and also on admission by learned Govt. Advocate, the photocopies of the deeds were exhibited and marked as Exbt. 1 series. 7. One of the claimants, namely Sri Manas Paul was examined as PW-1 and cross- examined. After comparing with the certified copy and also on admission by learned Govt. Advocate, the photocopies of the deeds were exhibited and marked as Exbt. 1 series. 7. One of the claimants, namely Sri Manas Paul was examined as PW-1 and cross- examined. On the other hand, the respondent-L.A. Collector had relied upon 8 (eight) sale instances. One witness Sri Chitta Ranjan Mandal appearing as witness as DW-1 had filed the certified copy of the assessment note and the copy of the award in support of their pleadings and exhibited those documents marked as Exbt.A series. 8. On the basis of all the evidence and documents submitted by the parties, learned L.A. Judge has found that the valuation of the lands relied upon by the parties differ from place to place. He rejected the valuation chart as it was not prepared by any expert committee relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 170 where, it has been observed that the valuation chart is irrelevant if it is not finalized by statutorily appointed expert committee after inviting objection and published in the official gazette. In the instant case, the valuation chart was not relied upon by the L.A. Judge following the principle laid down by the Apex Court. He has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 where it has been held that the market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for the property having due regard to existing condition with all existing advantages and potential possibility without let any most advantageous manner. 9. I do not find any cogent reason as to why the learned L.A. Judge has relied upon this decision since there is no evidence in the case in hand that there was any willing purchaser at the relevant point of time who expressed his willingness to purchase the land. As such, this decision is not relevant in the instant case and in deciding the instant appeal. Learned L.A. Judge did not consider the Sale-deeds No. 1-340, 1-2968, 1-302 and 1-2637 on the ground that those lands are of small pieces of land under Salgarah Mouja. 10. As such, this decision is not relevant in the instant case and in deciding the instant appeal. Learned L.A. Judge did not consider the Sale-deeds No. 1-340, 1-2968, 1-302 and 1-2637 on the ground that those lands are of small pieces of land under Salgarah Mouja. 10. The learned LA Judge in his finding has stated that though map of Salgarah Mouja was produced but there is no clear evidence that the sale instances as produced by the claimants are adjacent to the acquired land. Relying upon a decision reported in Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 AIR SCW 3892 the learned L.A. Judge held that the potentiality of land for the purpose of development as also for building purpose would depend upon large number of factors. According to him, all those factors were not taken into consideration by the L.A. Collector while assessing the compensation. Further, the nature of development of the surrounding area and availability of the land, prospect of development and productivity, all those were not considered. He found there was possibility of development of agriculture and rice production. Considering all these factors, the L.A. Judge has concluded that the valuation of the land would be Rs. 5.00 lakhs per kani instead of Rs. 1.00 lakh per kani as given by the L.A. Collector. However, he has rejected the claim of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of future income from agricultural products on the ground that to substantiate his claim, the claimant did not produce any documentary evidence. Accordingly, both the issues were decided by the learned L.A. Judge as aforestated. 11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the assessment made by the learned L.A. Judge, awarding Rs. 5.00 lakhs per kani, the State has preferred this appeal. 12. Heard learned Govt. Advocate, Mr. N. Chowdhury appearing for the appellants. This Court has considered the merits of the claim of the claimant-respondents from the available records attached to the paper book of the case. 13. I have perused the evidence led by the respective parties. I find that the claimant- respondents did not make any endeavour to prove the position of their land or the distance of their land from the lands described in the sale instances, as relied upon by both the parties, though, map was produced by one of the claimants Sri Manas Paul himself. I find that the claimant- respondents did not make any endeavour to prove the position of their land or the distance of their land from the lands described in the sale instances, as relied upon by both the parties, though, map was produced by one of the claimants Sri Manas Paul himself. It is settled law that in a land acquisition case the claimant is to prove his own case. Non-furnishing of any evidence to prove the distance between his land and the lands of those sale instances is fatal for the claimant-respondents. There is no evidence that the land value was increasing since 2004. I am at a loss to understand, wherefrom the learned L.A. Judge has got this evidence. 14. In Avinash Dhavaji Naik (supra), the Supreme Court has held that “in absence of any example of sale being available, the reference Court is required to take recourse to other methods of valuation. When the lands sought to be acquired are admittedly agricultural in nature, the State should bring on record the requisite information, viz. the nature of the crop, the annual average yield, availability of irrigation facilities, etc., so as to enable the reference Court to arrive at a correct decision in regard to grant of compensation under the Act. The potentiality of a land for the purpose of development as also for building purposes would depend upon a large number of factors. For the said purpose, the Court may not only have to bear in mind the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired but also the subsequent events to some extent. The price of the land may skyrocket depending upon the development as also future potentiality.” 15. Relying upon this decision, the learned L.A. Judge held that there is possibility of development of agriculture and rice production. In my opinion, the learned L.A. Judge could not properly appreciate this principle of law because at the very beginning the Apex Court made it clear that “in absence of any example of sale being available” the principle laid down in Avinash Dhavaji Naik (supra) could be considered. In the case before the Apex Court a vast agricultural land was acquired for the purpose of forming twin city near Bombay called as “New Bombay Project”. In the case before the Apex Court a vast agricultural land was acquired for the purpose of forming twin city near Bombay called as “New Bombay Project”. In the case at hand before this Court, the construction of canal was undertaken for the better irrigation and cultivation of crops. So, for the said construction, the crop growers would be benefited and they would be placed under much advantageous position. 16. Further, in this case, I find both the claimants and the State authority have relied upon some sale instances in support of their respective claims, which, the learned L.A. Judge also ought to have considered before placing reliance upon Avinash Dhavaji Naik (supra) as facts of that said case is quite distinguishable from facts of the present case. The L.A. Judge himself has rejected four Sale-deeds No. 1-340, 1-2968, 1-302 and 1-2637 which are of shop class of land and commercial land. 17. The land of the claimant-respondents measures 0.18 acres i.e. approximately 14 gandas of land which is “Nal” class of land. The PW-1 has stated that it was an alluvial and fertile land. The claimant-respondents have relied upon four Sale-deeds as Exbt.1 series. The vendor of the Sale-deeds is same and was executed in the year 2005. In the boundary of land of the Sale-deeds, it is categorically stated that the lands are of “Viti-tilla” class of land meant for “Dokan-viti” (shop class) having a measurement of 18' x 9' from north to south. According to me, the learned L.A. Judge has rightly rejected the Sale-deeds (Exbt.1 series) for his consideration to determine the market price of the acquired land. 18. From the assessment note, I find there is one Sale-deed bearing No. 1-521 having “Nal” class of land measuring 0.08 acres, having valuation of Rs. 1.50 lakhs per kani which was executed on 20.03.2009. The land was acquired vide notification dated 07.10.2009. It is settled principle that among all of the sale instances, the highest one is to be taken into account to determine the market price of any land under acquisition. I also find that the land is of alluvial and fertile in nature which would definitely fetch higher value, but, from the evidence on record, I do not find any substance to support the assessment of the market value of the said land at Rs. I also find that the land is of alluvial and fertile in nature which would definitely fetch higher value, but, from the evidence on record, I do not find any substance to support the assessment of the market value of the said land at Rs. 5.00 lakhs per kani as determined by the learned L.A. Judge. In my opinion, though the L.A. Act is an enactment aimed towards the welfare of the land-loosers yet, the Court should not be unmindful to the fact that the award should never be at the whims of the Court. It must consider the evidence as led by the parties, particularly, the claimants i.e. land owners. This Court while determining compensation has given his thoughtful consideration to the fact that the land undoubtedly is alluvial and fertile in nature which the appellant-State could not deny in their evidence. From S. No. 8 of assessment note I find the sale instance, bearing No. 1-521 has fetched a value of Rs. 1.50 lakhs per kani and the Sale-deed was executed on 20.03.2009 i.e. just few months before the acquisition of land in question. 19. I have already discussed above that there is no material before the Court to support the enhancement of award from Rs. 1.00 lakh to Rs. 5.00 lakhs but the land in question was of alluvial and fertile in nature and character. Moreover, in the case in hand, I find highest sale deed at Rs. 1.5 lakh. Having been considered all these aspects as aforestated, I find no other alternative but to reduce the compensation as determined by the learned L.A. Judge and I reduce it accordingly, and determine the rate of compensation @ Rs. 2.50 lakhs per kani. 20. The claimant-respondents shall be entitled to other statutory benefits under the L.A. Act from the date of notification. 21. With the aforesaid modification of the judgment and award dated 21.01.2015, the present appeal is disposed of. No costs. 22. Send back the L.C.Rs.