JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Asutosh De appearing for the appellant-Railways and learned counsel Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of private respondent No.1. 2. In the present appeal, challenge has been made to an award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge-2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. Misc. (L.A.) 70 of 2013. 3. Mr. Asutosh De, learned counsel for the appellant-Railways, asserts that the assessment made by the State in the Assessment Note by referring to various sale deeds formed the basis of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, when reference was made to the Land Acquisition Judge in course of the proceedings the claimant in support of their claim for enhancement of the compensation amount proved Exhibit-2 series including a sale deed No.1-577 dated 28.03.2009 of 'Nal' class of land measuring 02 satak Chara/Nal class of land at Rajdhar Nagar Mouja which was sold @ Rs.16,00,000 per kani and another sale deed No.1-578 dated 28.03.2009 'Nal' class of land measuring 02 satak under the same Mouja which was also sold @ Rs.16,00,000 per kani. Apart from that, the claimant also led evidence to prove the aforesaid documents and led the oral evidence through PW-1 namely Sri Niranjan Sutradhar. In the proceedings before the learned L.A. Judge, the learned counsel for the L.A. Collector and the Northern Frontier Railway argued that the assessment made by the L.A. Collector was based upon reasoned sale deeds collected by the Revenue Officer concerned and consequently, the determination made by the L.A. Collector ought not to be enhanced. The arguments advanced by the State and the N.F. Railway were considered and the learned L.A. Judge determined the valuation of the acquired land @ Rs.7,20,000 per kani. It is contended by Mr. Asutosh De, learned counsel for the appellant-Railways that the learned L.A. Judge arrived at the rate as determined by him by giving a discount of 55% of the exemplar sale deeds provided by the claimant, i.e. reduced from Rs.16,00,000 per kani to Rs.7,20,000 per kani taking into consideration the distance of the land and the size of the land in question. He effectively submits that the land involved in the present case is a very small tract of land and is located at a large distance away from the land for which the sale deeds were produced by the claimant to try and justify their enhancement claim. 4. I have perused Exhibit-2 series produced before the learned L.A. Judge and found that a certified copy of a map showing the location of the exemplar land and the acquired land has been provided. This Court took the assistance of the learned counsel for the private respondent to point out exactly where the exemplar land and the acquired land are located. On a mere reading of the said map, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Railways cannot be accepted insofar as very far distance is concerned. In fact, the lands in question are located in the same Mouja and while it is true that the acquired land is at a distance from the exemplar land and is a smaller tract of land, this Court is of the considered view that the reduction of 55% made by the learned L.A. Judge from the rate as exhibited from the exemplar land proven by the claimant is wholly justified, although the counsel for the Railways seeks further reduction of the same. 5. I have also perused the oral evidence led by the claimant through claimant witness i.e. PW-1 Sri Niranjan Sutradhar. It is important to take note of the fact that the claimant's witness was cross-examined by O/P Nos.1 and 2 and in response to a suggestion made by the respondents that the exemplar land is situated at a faraway distance from the land actually acquired from the claimant, the said witness answered as follows: 'It is not a fact that there is a big distance between the acquired land and the lands mentioned in the Exhibit-2 series.' Therefore, once the claimant's witness was cross-examined and the suggestions made by and on behalf of O/P Nos.1 and 2 were negated, admittedly, no other evidence has been led by the appellant in order to establish their contention that there was a large distance in between the exemplar land and the land acquired. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned award rendered by the learned L.A. Judge. 6. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned award rendered by the learned L.A. Judge. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed and the award dated 03.06.2016 passed by the learned L.A. Judge in Misc. (L.A.) 70 of 2013 stands affirmed. Parties are at liberty to seek execution of the decree in accordance with law. 7. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Send the lower court records forthwith.