JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharji, along with Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimant-respondents. There is no representation for the respondent No.5 despite due notice from this court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the land acquisition Act, 1894 from the judgment and award dated 08.06.2016 delivered by the Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati, Udaipur, in Misc. (L.A.)84 of 2014. 3. The land under reference has been acquired by the notification being 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 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/- Comparatively higher rate has been given for positional advantage being attached to the acquired land. For purpose of arriving at the fair rate of the acquired land, the L.A. Collector had considered the following sale deeds which carried the rate as shown in the table below where the classes of land, area in acre and the rate per kani including the date of registration of the sale deeds have been shown: 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 by the sale deed No.1-103, a piece of land belonging to 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. 4. Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted with adequate emphasis that the Land Acquisition Judge did not adopt the scientific method for purpose of comparison in order to determine the fair rate of the acquired land. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimants respondents has, per contra, submitted that while deciding the reference, the fair land rate had not been assessed by the L.A. Collector. As a result, the claimant-respondents pressed for the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. It has been further asserted for the respondents that the land as acquired from the respondents are situate in the prime location and that aspect were not properly assessed for purpose of determining the fair market rate. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that the Land Acquisition Judge while determining the rate did not consider the locational advantage and disadvantage, rate of acceleration of the land value and the index of the development in that area. However, for purpose of development 75% from the compared value was deducted and the Land Acquisition Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- per kani. Therefore, there is no substance in the grounds objection, as projected, in the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said determination, this appeal has been filed by the requiring department. 6. There is consensus in the bar that the land, which is the subject matter of the appeal, falls under the notification dated 28.10.2010 and is the part of contiguous tract of land. In the judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 delivered in L.A. App. No.19 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.30,00,000/- per kani. It has been asserted that even if the contention of Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 a big tract of land. 7. In the said judgment it has been 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%. 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. 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. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further 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 @Rs.30,00,000/- per kani. It has been further asserted that the sale deed No.1-103 dated 13.01.2010 was not properly appreciated. 9. Having considered the location of the land as acquired, it transpired that the land is not in the advantageous position to garner much higher rate as is contemplated. It has been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that similar kind of land, if not of the same nature of land, was purchased or acquired with much lesser rate as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge. By the judgment and order dated 08.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(LA) No.84 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. By the judgment and order dated 08.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(LA) No.84 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 08.06.2016 delivered in Misc.(L.A) 84 of 2014, this Court is of the view that the acquired land belonging to Nal class 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 those are under reference. Hence, it is only reasonable to hold that the acquired land should fetch the rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. Along with the said land value, the other components of the compensation, such as additional compensation under Section 23(1)(A) of the L.A. Act, 30% 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 shall be entitled to the referring-claimants. It is further clarified that the solatium and the additional compensation shall carry interest at the rate and effect in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act. In terms of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. Draw the award [decree] accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.