JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. PB Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act) from the judgment and award dated 27.08.2016 delivered in Misc. (LA) No. 84/2008 by the LA Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 3. 3. It is not in dispute that the piece of land pertaining to khatian No.6069, plot No. 6190 measuring 0.32 acre of Nal class and another piece of land pertaining to khatian No. 278, plot No. 6181, Nal class of land measuring 0.17 acre were acquired from the appellants or their predecessors for construction of ONGC drill site [waste pit]. 4. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the LA Act was issued under No. F.9(10)/REV/SEQ/VI/2005 dated 14.02.2014 and the due declaration was also published under the notification of the even number dated 21.10.2006. It appears from the records that after the acquisition was initiated the land acquisition collector had considered four sale instances (four sale deeds) being 1-6431 dated 05.07.2003, 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003, 1-5662 dated 04.04.2003 and 1-8065 dated 09.09.2003 and in the course of inquiry for determining the land rate for purpose of computing the compensation, what the land-losers are entitled to. 5. For purpose of better reference, mouja number, plot number, classification of the land, area in acre, deed number and date, total value of land, value of the land per kani, distance from the land, proposed to be acquired are shown in a table hereinbelow: Sl No. Mouja Plot No. Classification of land Area in acre Deed No. & Date Total value of land Value of land per kani Distance from the land proposed to be acquired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Indranagar, sheet No. 2/P 6050 6057 Nal 0.115 1-6431 dt.25/7/03 Rs.23,000/- Rs.80,000/- 670 ft 450 ft 2 6168 Bastu 0.04 1-8511 dt.24/9/03 Rs.2,00,000/- Rs,20,00,000/- 90 ft 3 7180 7111 Chara Nal 0.11 1-5662 dt. 4/7/03 Rs.22,000/- Rs.80,000/- 60 ft 240 ft 4 6301 6308 6305 6307 6303 6304 6264 6267 Pukur (pukur) (par) Chara Chara Chara Chara 0.50 0.20 1-8065 dt.9/9/03 Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,14,285/- 700 ft 400 ft 450 ft 400 ft 450 ft 450 ft 40 ft 70 ft 6. 4/7/03 Rs.22,000/- Rs.80,000/- 60 ft 240 ft 4 6301 6308 6305 6307 6303 6304 6264 6267 Pukur (pukur) (par) Chara Chara Chara Chara 0.50 0.20 1-8065 dt.9/9/03 Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,14,285/- 700 ft 400 ft 450 ft 400 ft 450 ft 450 ft 40 ft 70 ft 6. Thereafter, the LA Collector made further investigation about the rate of urbanization in the adjoining areas of the acquired land and considered various sale instances as cited above, in order to determining the rate of the land under various classes. Finally, on the basis of the inputs available on inquiry, the LA Collector has determined the land rate in the following manner: Classification of land Value of land per kani Nal/Chara(nal)/pukurpar(Nal) Rs. 1,00,000/- Bastu (Nal), Bastu (Tilla) Rs.10,00,000/- Viti (Tilla), Challa(Tilla) Rs.8,00,000/- Path Rs.60,000/- 7. The appellants or their predecessors being dissatisfied with the said determination, prayed for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The land acquisition judge while determining the reference being Misc. (LA)84/2010 has considered two more sale deeds being the sale deed No.1-7105 (Exhibit-A series) whereby 2 gandas of land was transferred on consideration of Rs.3 lakhs, meaning 30 lakhs per kani and the sale deed No.1-8511 (Exhibit-2 series) whereby, a piece of land measuring 1 ganda, 3 kara, 1 kranta and 13 dhurs was transferred at consideration of Rs.2 lakhs, meaning Rs.20 Lakhs per kani approximately. 8. The sale deed No. 1-10778 (Exhibit-3 series) denotes a transaction of the land 0.07 acres measuring on a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. The LA Judge, taking cumulative consideration of all the sale deeds and the decision of this High Court in LA Appeal No. 51/2013 has awarded Rs.5 Lakhs per kani for Nal class of land arising out of the same notification. 9. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that there cannot be any uniform rate simply for the reason, for acquisition of another piece and parcel of land under the same notification one rate had been awarded. For every individual plot, there should be independent inquiry for determining the rate of the land in as much as with the change of location the advantages may vary. It cannot be said, even for convenience, that since under one notification and one plot of land has been rated, the same rate shall follow in all other plots. 10. Mr. For every individual plot, there should be independent inquiry for determining the rate of the land in as much as with the change of location the advantages may vary. It cannot be said, even for convenience, that since under one notification and one plot of land has been rated, the same rate shall follow in all other plots. 10. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that there is no dispute that the two sale deeds (Exhibit- 1 series and Exhibit-2 series) carry the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs per kani respectively. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has in his fairness submitted that it cannot be denied that the land transacted by the two sale deeds belongs to the viti class of land which is admittedly a superior class, but at the same time, Mr. Bhattacharjee has emphatically submitted that for purpose of rationalisation, the necessary deduction, even to the extent of 50% may be made. On such deduction the rate would be Rs.10 lakhs per kani, which is quite reasonable. 11. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has finally made reference to the settlement map to show the location. The land which was sold at Rs. 20 lakhs per kani is in proximity to the urban area and one plot away from the road whereas the land which fetched a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs per kani is just along the road. So far the positional advantage, class of land and the other advantages are concerned, those examplar lands are far superior than the acquired land pertaining to plot No. 6189 and 6190. Those lands situate in the interior of gradient. That apart, it has been already noted that the acquired land belongs to an inferior class, i.e. Nal class of land. The LA Collector has given for the Nal class of land the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per kani. 12. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that there is no precise exercise for determining the land rate. Always some sort of guess work has to be done for determining the proximate rate by the Court in order to deriving the compensation under Section 23 of the LA Act. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the rate which has been determined by the LA Judge is without any reason and in exclusion of the exemplars as admitted in the evidence at the instance of the claimant-appellant. Thus, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the rate which has been determined by the LA Judge is without any reason and in exclusion of the exemplars as admitted in the evidence at the instance of the claimant-appellant. 13. From the other side, Mr. PB Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-ONGC Ltd. has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 28A of the LA Act, the principle that is arrived by the court is that for a land under the same notification and under the same project, the similar rate would be the rule. 14. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel has referred two decisions of this Court in In-charge HR-ER ONGC Ltd. Vs. Pallab Debnath and ors. [Judgment dated 28.06.2018 delivered in LA Appeal No. 30/2015] and Abhinash Ch. Sarkar vs. In-charge HR-ER ONGC Ltd. Etc. [Judgment dated 28.07.2016 delivered in LA Appeal No.51/2013, etc.]. In both the cases, following the principle of uniformity as derived from Section 28A of the LA Act, after deduction from the viti class of land by 75%, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs per kani has been granted. According to Mr. Dhar, the similar principle should be applied in the present case. 15. It has come to the notice of this Court that while applying the ratio of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 , the LA courts fall prey to a common error by overlooking the word, “that the reference to similar land”, inasmuch as para 15 of the said report reads as under: “15. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where the sale-deeds pertaining to the different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of the various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing the fair compensation.” [Emphasis added] 16. The phrase that has been used in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra) “the similar lands”, has to be critically dwelled upon for having an accurate insight to the legal proposition. What makes two pieces of land similar to each other? According to this Court, its location, the index of development, the class of the land and the other advantages attached to the land. These four parameters if considered cumulatively allows a prudent person to come to a conclusion that whether two pieces of land, though differently located is liable to be treated as similar. 17. In the case in hand, what Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued by referring to the assessment sheet as prepared by the LA Collector has to be given serious attention. In the assessment sheet, the four sale instances have been considered, out of which, the viti class of land covered by sale deed No. 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 (Exhibit-2 series) fetched Rs.20 lakhs per kani and the said land is actually 90 feet away from the acquired land whereas the another Page 9 of 12 land covered by the sale deed No. 1-566 dated 04.07.2003 which fetched only Rs.80,000/- which is situated 60 feet away from the acquired land. 18. The purchase is very close to each other but between the Nal class of land and the Viti class of land, there is a wide price variation. It is truly difficult to adjust this price variation on the basis of the exemplars. For this purpose, this Court has gone to the settlement map to have a glimpse of the real location. It is truly difficult to adjust this price variation on the basis of the exemplars. For this purpose, this Court has gone to the settlement map to have a glimpse of the real location. It appears that the tract of land as has been acquired by the respondent is divided into the various plots. The viti class of land which fetched a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per kani is situate four plots away from the plot No. 6189 and 6190. Plot No. 6189 and 6190 are contiguous. They in situate the close proximity of the said viti class of land but at the same time, access to the land remains bottle-necked. And there is no evidence in this regard from either side. 19. The LA Collector made fair assessment by stating that the acquired land is in the village Indranagar, which is adjoining to the Agartala town and the urbanization is progressing very rapidly. As a result, there is a strong demand for land. The LA Collector has assessed that there is an increase of 10% per year in the value per kani. Thus, he wanted to have a rate of Rs.1 lakhs per kani for the Nal, Chara and Pukurpar Nal class of land. This, in view of his observation, is inadequate and does not provide the fair rate as a result of which the Land Acquisition Judge has interfered with the rate and enhanced the land value having regard to the said judgment of this Court at Rs.5 lakhs. 20. What Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the ONGC Ltd. has submitted, this Court is in total agreement with, but at the same time, the location and the index of development cannot be simply ignored. This Court is of the view that even Sectioin 28A of the LA Act has not prescribed any uniform rate, rather it has left the redetermination of the rate on the basis of any award of the Court to the LA Collector. For purpose of reference, Section 28 A is reproduced hereinbelow: “28A Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. For purpose of reference, Section 28 A is reproduced hereinbelow: “28A Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. - (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.” 21. Section 28A provides that “the amount of compensation may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Court. If such redetermination does not satisfy the land-losers, they may further go for a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, even though in the first instance they did not press for any such reference. It shows that the fresh appraisal by the court would be the basis but the final rate for every piece of land acquired under the notification would be decided following the parameters as stated above. 22. It shows that the fresh appraisal by the court would be the basis but the final rate for every piece of land acquired under the notification would be decided following the parameters as stated above. 22. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records so produced before this Court, this Court is of the view that the rate as determined by the LA Judge at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per kani requires some modification. 23. It would be appropriate if the rate as provided under the sale deed (Exhibit 2 series) at Rs.20 lakhs per kani is taken as the basis and as the instance is of the similar class of land, the index of under development, lack of access, dissimilar class of land and locational disadvantage can be adjusted keeping in mind the basic principles of compensation, is providing a better and fair compensation to the land-loser in the following manner. 24. Since this Court has examined the position qua the settlement map of the acquired land, according to it, 60% shall be deducted from the rate of the said viti class of land [Rs.20 lakhs per kani] inferring the rate for the acquired land. Thus, the rate is determined at Rs.8 lakhs per kani. 25. The compensation shall be determined on the basis of the said rate following the prescription as provided under Section 23 of the LA Act, meaning the additional compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 23 (1A) of the LA Act, the solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the LA Act. The additional compensation, solatium and compensation for land shall carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the LA Act. The said amount shall be paid by the respondent No. 2 within three months from the date of the decree (award). 26. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Draw the decree (Award) and thereafter send down the records.