JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel along with Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimant-respondents in L.A. App. No.9 of 2017, L.A. App. No.10 of 2017, L.A. App. No.17 of 2017, L.A. App. No.7 of 2017, L.A. App. No.15 of 2017 and L.A. App. No.16 of 2017 and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in L.A. App. No.14 of 2017 and for the cross objector in C.O.(F.A) No.6 of 2018 [arising out of L.A. App. No.14 of 2017]. There is no representation for the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent, despite due notice from this court. 2. These appeals being L.A. App. No.9 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Abdul Mazid & Ors], L.A. App. No.10 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Sri Tutan Deb & Anr.], L.A. App. No.17 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Sri Ratan Chakraborty & Anr.], L.A. App. No.7 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Sri Subhash Chakraborty & Anr.], L.A. App. No.14 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Sri Rakhal Debnath & Anr.], L.A. App. No.15 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Amiya Nimai Choudhury & Ors], L.A. App. No.16 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Manoranjan Shil & Anr.] are combined for disposal by a common judgment along with C.O.(F.A) No.6 of 2018 [Sri Rakhal Debnath vs. Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway & Anr.] arising from L.A. App. No.14 of 2017 inasmuch as the same notification the lands, the subject matter, were acquired and the compensation was computed by a common matrix. 3. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset has submitted that all these appeals and the cross objection are covered by the judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 delivered in L.A. App. No.19 of 2017 [Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway vs. Abdul Mannan Miah & Ors.]. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that the lands under reference in these appeals and the cross objection were acquired by the same notification being the revenue department notification No.9(2)-REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 28.01.2010 under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, in short the L.A. Act, for construction of Agartala-Sabroom railway line under Mouja- Uttar Chandrapur under Udaipur Sub-Division. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that the lands under reference in these appeals and the cross objection were acquired by the same notification being the revenue department notification No.9(2)-REV/ACQ/IX/2010 dated 28.01.2010 under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, in short the L.A. Act, for construction of Agartala-Sabroom railway line under Mouja- Uttar Chandrapur under Udaipur Sub-Division. In this regard, there is no dispute at the bar. It is to be mentioned that the L.A. Collector has in a common exercise and on consideration of the same set of sale exemplars has determined the rate having due regard to the location of the land as under: Class of land Rate per kani Nal Rs.90,000/- Bastu (Nal) Rs.1,50,000/- Nal Rs.2,00,000/- Chara (Tilla) Rs.1,80,000/- Doba(Nal) Rs.1,50,000/- Pukur (Nal) Rs.1,50,000/- Enhanced rate has been given having due consideration of the positional advantage attached to the acquired land. For purpose of determining the rate, the L.A. Collector had considered the following sale deeds which carried the varied rate as shown in the table. The classes of land, area in acre and the rate per kani including the date of registration of the sale deeds have been recorded in the manner shown below: Sl. No. SALE DEED NO. CLASS AREA IN ACRES RATE PER KANI DATE OF REG. 1 1-1852 Nal 0.40 Rs.60,000/- 23.11.2009 2 1-194 Nal 0.08 Rs.80,000/- 30.11.2009 3 1-2047 Nal 0.60 Rs.80,000/- 31.12.2009 4 1-1575 Bastu 0.02 Rs.60,000/- 23.09.2009 5 1-1477 Nal 0.64 Rs.1,00,000/- 02.09.2009 6 1-1478 Chara 0.06 Rs.66,666/- 02.09.2009 7 1-1486 Chara 0.05 Rs.80,000/- 02.09.2009 8 1-1073 Nal 0.04 Rs.70,000/- 19.06.2009 A 1-103 Nal 0.04 Rs.30,00,000/- 13.01.2010 It would appear that only one deed being sale deed No.1- 103 for Nal class of land measuring 0.04 acre was sold and purchased at Rs.30,00,000/- per kani on 13.01.2010, whereas the notice under Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act was issued on 28.01.2010. 4. Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge did not adopt a scientific method for purpose of the comparison in order to determine the fair rate of the acquired land. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimant-respondents and the cross objector have submitted that while deciding the reference, the fair land rate had not been decided by the L.A. Collector. Being aggrieved, the referring-claimant-respondents and the cross objector pressed for the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimant-respondents and the cross objector have submitted that while deciding the reference, the fair land rate had not been decided by the L.A. Collector. Being aggrieved, the referring-claimant-respondents and the cross objector pressed for the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. It has further been reiterated by the appellants and the respondents in the cross objection that the land as acquired from the respondents and the cross objector is located in a prime location has not been assessed for purpose of determining the fair market rate. They have further submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge while determining the rate did not consider the locational advantage and disadvantage, rate of acceleration in the land value and the index of the development in that area. However, for purpose of development, 75% from the said rate of Rs.30,00,000/- was deducted and the Land Acquisition Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- per kani. Being aggrieved by the said determination, the present appeals have been filed by the requiring department, whereas the cross objection has been filed one of the referring-claimant-respondents. 6. There is consensus in the bar that the judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 has decided in respect of the land which falls under the same notification and is the part of contiguous tract of land. In the judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 delivered in L.A. App. No.14 of 2017 the said sale deed being No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 was considered as the ‘odd deed’ as it carries exorbitant rate at Rs.30 lakhs per kani. It has been asserted that even if the contention of Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the said deed has been executed between the relatives of the referring-claimants for purpose of garnering undue advantage from the land acquisition proceeding is discarded, then also the said deed does not appear to be comparable for purpose of determining the rate of the acquired land for two reasons viz. (i) the deed has been executed on the day which is very close to the date of publication of the acquisition notification and (ii) the quantum of the land that is under transaction is very small and that small land cannot be compared with the acquired land. 7. (i) the deed has been executed on the day which is very close to the date of publication of the acquisition notification and (ii) the quantum of the land that is under transaction is very small and that small land cannot be compared with the acquired land. 7. In the said judgment, it has been thereafter observed as under: “The most comparable deed according to this court is deed No.1-11 for the reason that the transaction made by the said deed was for a land measuring .36 acre. The land that was, transferred by the sale deed No.1-11 did also belong to “nal” class of land. If these two deeds are compared, even though, the land is not very proximate but a realistic rate can be gathered. Since the said land measuring .36 acre was sold at Rs.4,50,000/- the rate would come at Rs.5 lakh per kani. Looking at the position of the land it transpires that one is the plot No.918 whereas the acquired land is comprised in the plot No.618 of the said mouja. The distance and the advantage would be variable from location. Thus, keeping due regard to the location of the land and the acceleration of the rate in the rural areas at 10%, this court is of the view that if the land rate is determined at Rs.6 lakhs per kani that would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the land rate is decided at Rs.6 lakhs per kani for the acquired land. The compensation has to be calculated on the basis of the said rate. The referring-claimants respondents would get the value of the land at Rs.6 lakhs per kani. Along with that, they would get the additional compensation at 12% under section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium at the rate of 30%. It is further made clear that on the compensation, the referring-claimants would get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, meaning on expiry of one year, the interest would be 15% till the payment is made. It is further made clear that the solatium would carry interest from the date of taking possession till the payment is made in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further made clear that the solatium would carry interest from the date of taking possession till the payment is made in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The entire enhanced amount shall be paid within a period of 3(three) months from the date when a copy of this judgment and decree shall be available to the appellant and the respondent No.4.” 8. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the cross objector has submitted that the deduction as made by the Land Acquisition Judge while determining the fair rate to the extent of 75% is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as at the time of such huge deduction the location of the land and its proximity to the capital city of Agartala etc. were not duly considered, else the rate would have been determined @Rs.30,00,000/- per kani. It has been asserted that the sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 was not properly appreciated. In the cross objection, the referring claimant has taken a ground that the fair rate of the land would have been much higher and the rate would have been at least at Rs.30,00,000/- per kani. 9. Having considered the location of the land as acquired by the aid of the settlement map, it transpired that the lands are not in the advantageous position to garner such higher rate as claimed. It has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the referring-claimants that similar kind of land, if not of the same nature of land, was purchased or acquired with much lesser rate, as examined and determined by the Land Acquisition Judge. By the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(LA) No.53 of 2014, the Land Acquisition Judge has observed that the fair land rate would be Rs.6,00,000/- per kani for the acquired land. 10. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly on the basis of the judgment and award dated 21.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(L.A) 53 of 2014, this Court is of the view that all the acquired land being Nal class of land shall carry the uniform rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. There is no distinguishable feature between the land that has been acquired and which lands are the subject matter of these appeals. Thus, the lands should fetch the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. There is no distinguishable feature between the land that has been acquired and which lands are the subject matter of these appeals. Thus, the lands should fetch the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. Based on the said land value, the other components of the compensation, such as additional compensation at 12% in terms of Section 23(1)(A) of the L.A. Act, 30% over it, as the solatium in terms of Section 23(2) of the L.A Act and the interest in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act be added. It is clarified that the solatium and the additional compensation shall carry interest at the rate in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act from the date when the notification under Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act has been issued. In terms of the above, all these appeals are partly allowed. Draw the award [decree] accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.