JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 05.07.2016 passed in Misc. (LA) 266 of 2012 by the land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Land Acquisition Collector, Government of Tripura has acquired a vast area of land for the purpose of construction of Jirania Motor-stand under Sub-division-Jirania in West Tripura district under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants i.e. the land owners were noticed and on receipt of the notice, the appellants also appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of comparable sale instance awarded the amount @ Rs. 1 lakh per kani. Being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants has sought for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The appellants, being the land owners have filed their claim statement. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the requiring department i.e. the Transport Department, Government of Tripura also has filed their respective counter statements. The land owners in their claim statement have claimed that the market price should be Rs. 1 crore and 60 lakh at the time of the acquisition whereas the State-respondents have claimed that the award of the Land Acquisition collector is reasonable, just and fair and they claimed for maintaining the same award. 4. Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that though vast area of land has been acquired for construction of Jirania Motor-stand, but all the plots of land are situated within Mouja-Bankimnagar. He has relied upon a case bearing case no. Misc (LA) 271 of 2012 wherein the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the market price of a plot of land under the Mouja-Bankimnagar at Rs. 30 lakh per kani and in the instant appeal, the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the market price @ Rs. 11,50,000/- per kani being situated in the same Mouja. 5. On the basis of this submission, I have perused the facts of the case no. Misc.(LA) 271 of 2012 wherein I find that the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market price of the land @ Rs. 11,50,000/- per kani being situated in the same Mouja. 5. On the basis of this submission, I have perused the facts of the case no. Misc.(LA) 271 of 2012 wherein I find that the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market price of the land @ Rs. 10 lakh per kani considering the position, potentiality and proximity of the land which is just adjacent plot to the National Highway. In the case in hand, the plot of land which has been acquired, though, falls under Mouja-Bankimnagar, but is different in all respects than that of the land involved in Misc (LA) 271 of 2012. It is settled position of law that the burden lies upon the claimant to prove all the factors in respect of his claim for compensation for the value he wants. The onus totally lies upon the claimant. In the instant case, the claimant has not produced any map, which, he ought to have been produced to substantiate that the land in question is similar and identical to the sale instance or to the plots of land relating to Misc. (LA) 271 of 2012. In case no. Misc.(LA) 271 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Collector himself has determined the market price of the acquired plot of land for Rs. 10 lakh per kani, whereas, considering the suitability and position of the land in question, in this case, the Land Acquisition Collector has determined the market price at Rs. 1 lakh per kani. 6. I have seen the assessment note wherein the Land Acquisition Collector has passed a reasoned order to award Rs. 1 lakh per kani. However, the Land Acquisition Judge in deciding the case under reference has enhanced the award determining the market price of the land at Rs. 11,50,000/- per kani that is about 11 times higher of the rate as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. In Misc.(LA) 271 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the award to Rs. 30 lakh per kani from Rs. 10 lakh per kani, as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. 2 times higher than that of the award of L.A. Collector. 7. I have perused the evidence and material on record as well as the sale instances relied upon by the parties. 30 lakh per kani from Rs. 10 lakh per kani, as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. 2 times higher than that of the award of L.A. Collector. 7. I have perused the evidence and material on record as well as the sale instances relied upon by the parties. After being scanned the evidence, I find that the claimant has failed to substantiate the case that the land fetches a value higher than that of the award made by the Land Acquisition Judge. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and consequently, does not call for any interference with the award dated 05.07.2016 as has been determined by the Land Acquisition Judge. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. Send back the L.C.Rs.