JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, L.A. Act) filed against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Misc.(LA) 65 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is as under: The Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Govt. of Tripura vide notification dated 19.01.2000 has acquired the plots of land one is classified as ‘Dokan viti’ measuring 0.05 acres and another measuring 0.15 acres classified as ‘Bastu’ in Plot Nos. 3552/12870 part and 3552/12870/part under Mouja Jogendranagar sheet No. 2/P, for the purpose of construction of permanent bridge over river Howra for Jogendranagar S.H. Constructions approach road. 3. Being noticed, the land owners took part in the proceeding before the L.A. Collector and submitted some sale instances. The office of the L.A. Collector also has produced some sale instances to determine the actual market price of the land in question at the relevant point of time. After comparing all the sale deeds and the evidence put forth by the respective parties, the L.A. Collector has determined the market price @ Rs.12,00,000/-per acre i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-per kani for ‘Dokan viti’ class of land and Rs.6,25,000/-per acre, i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-per kani for ‘Bastu’ class of land. The said award was also included the statutory liabilities prescribed under the Land Acquistion Act. The land owners, the appellant herein being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said award of the learned L.A.Collector, West Tripura has sought for reference under Section 18 of the L.A.Act. 4. The learned L.A. Judge while deciding the case under reference has gone through the statement of claims filed by the claimant-appellant as well as counter statement filed by the L.A. Collector as well as the requiring department. The claimant has produced some sale instances which are marked as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. On the contrary, the respondent-L.A. Collector as well the requiring department has pressed into service two sale instances which are marked as Exhibits A & B to substantiate their respective claims. 5. During the course of hearing before the learned L.A. Judge, the claimant-appellant has claimed that the market price of land in question was not less than Rs.35,00,000/-per kani at the relevant point of time. 6. 5. During the course of hearing before the learned L.A. Judge, the claimant-appellant has claimed that the market price of land in question was not less than Rs.35,00,000/-per kani at the relevant point of time. 6. After taking note of the rival submissions of the contesting parties as well as after comparing the sale instances and considering the potentiality and importance of the land, the learned L.A. Judge awarded the compensation @ Rs.30,00,000/-per kani for the ‘Dokan viti’ class of land and Rs.15,00,000/-per kani for the ‘Bastu’ class of land along with other statutory components prescribed under the L.A.Act. 7. After being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge dated, 31.03.2015 in Misc.(LA) 65/2012, the claimant-land owners have preferred the present appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. 8. Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant has submitted that at the relevant point of time, the land was having the market price of Rs.35,00,000/-per kani and he further submits that the document which he submitted before the learned L.A. Judge gives ample support to his claim. 9. Per contra, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. supporting the award of the L.A. Collector, West Tripura submits that the learned L.A. Judge has increased the market price of the land which is six times higher than that of the actual market price at the relevant point of time. However, the State of Tripura has not preferred any appeal or cross-objection in connection with the appeal filed by the claimant. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties. Perused the pleadings as well as the evidence they have adduced during the course of proceeding and the sale instances the parties have relied upon for determination of the market price of the land in question. 11. On perusal of the evidence and materials on record, I find no infirmity in the findings of the learned L.A. Judge where he has determined the market price of the ‘Dokan viti’ class of land at Rs.30,00,000/-per kani and hence, it deserves no interference. However, it is the contention of Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. 11. On perusal of the evidence and materials on record, I find no infirmity in the findings of the learned L.A. Judge where he has determined the market price of the ‘Dokan viti’ class of land at Rs.30,00,000/-per kani and hence, it deserves no interference. However, it is the contention of Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that the ‘Bastu’ class of land is adjacent to ‘Dokan viti’ class of land and considering this aspect, this Court is inclined to enhance the rate of the ‘Bastu’ class of land to Rs.20,00,000/- per kani from Rs. 15,00,000/-per kani. 12. The award against other statutory components prescribed under L.A. Act are found to be in accordance with law and hence, does not call for interference. 13. Accordingly, this Court directs the L.A. Collector, West Tripura to pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant-appellant as determined on the aforesaid terms within a period of two months from today. 14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant appeal is partly allowed. 15. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.