JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar Sharma appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel Mr. D.C. Roy for the private respondent No.1 and learned counsel Mr. P. Gautam appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Collector. 2. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an award dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala arising out of case No. Misc. (L.A.) 05 of 2013 whereby the learned L.A. Judge came to a conclusion that the valuation of the land acquired from the private respondent ought to be computed @ Rs.24,85,000 per kani. 3. Learned counsel for the State essentially contends that in the fact situation the claimant never produced any sale deed to justify the value of the land and on the contrary, the State had provided several exemplar documents and none of which supported the conclusion arrived at by the learned L.A. Judge. While the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the State appears to be correct, yet on perusal of the impugned award it is clear that the learned L.A. Judge, in fact, placed reliance upon a judgment passed by that Court in Misc. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 where the Court had directed enhancement of the rate of the acquired land from Rs.8,00,000 per kani to Rs.24,85,000 per kani. The learned L.A. Judge extensively dealt with the issues arising therefrom and also relied upon the judgment of this Court in L.A. Appeal No.94 of 2013 and, therefore, concluded that although the referring claimant did not produce the map of her acquired land, the O/P side (State) did not adduce any evidence to satisfy the L.A. Judge regarding determination of the rate of the acquired land. The acquired land admittedly was situated near Akhaura Land Customs Station, i.e. near Indo-Bangladesh border area and since the acquisition notice involving acquisition of land also covered under judgment of the Court of L.A. Judge in Misc. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 was a common notification, therefore the L.A. Judge in my considered view acted appropriately in placing reliance on the judgment of that Court for the valuation of the land in question. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 was a common notification, therefore the L.A. Judge in my considered view acted appropriately in placing reliance on the judgment of that Court for the valuation of the land in question. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even though the learned counsel for the State is correct in stating that the claimant had not brought on record any sale deed to justify his claim for enhancement of the land compensation, yet the selfsame notification under which acquisition occurred and was considered by this Court in Misc. (L.A.) 152 of 2010 and in the said case while the L.A. Collector had determined the valuation of the land at Rs.8,00,000 per kani, the amount has been enhanced by L.A. Judge to Rs.24,85,000 per kani. The L.A. Judge in the present case was fully justified in placing reliance on the same. 4. Learned counsel for the State also argued that the Court did not take into consideration the quality of the land involved. However, this objection is found to be misplaced since the land concerned in the present L.A. Appeal is classified as 'Nal' and the land for which valuation was given by the L.A. Court in the earlier Misc.(L.A.) 152 of 2010 was classified as 'Pukur'. Both are waterborne land and the same terms can be used synonymously. 5. The L.A. Appeal stands dismissed. The parties are at liberty to pursue their remedy as a consequence. 6. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Send the lower court records forthwith.