The State of Tripura representing by the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala has filed this appeal against the award and decree dated 30.9.78 passed by the Additional District (Land Acquisition) Judge, Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (LA) Case No. 177 of 1977, Misc. (LA) Case No. 48 of 1977 and Misc. (LA) Case No. 9 of 1978 enhancing the amount of compensation. 2. That State Government acquired land for the purpose of construction of a road from Bisramgonj to Sonamura under the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by notification 24.10.72 under section 4 of the Act. The notification was published in the Tripura Gazette on 1.11.72 and a declaration under section 6 of the Act was followed. The total area of land acquired by the said notification was 3.682 Acres. The Collector fixed compensation on the various classes of lands. 3. The respondent's land was classified under two categories, namely; Bhiti and Chara. Total compensation awarded to the respondent was Rs. 3,156.56 and this amount was received under protest. Thereafter, there was a reference under section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Judge. After examining the witnesses on behalf of the Claimant-respondent and on behalf of the appellant, the Additional Land Acquisition Judge by his award dated 20.9.78 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000/- per Kani. Against this impugned award the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the award given by the Land Acquisition Judge was not based on evidence and it was improper. Besides, the Land Acquisition Judge failed to determine the market value of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the Act. The respondent-Claimant was required to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Collector was inadequate. The claimant could not produce any reliable and convincing evidence to show that the amount awarded was inadequate, and thereby, the claimant failed to discharge his burden. The appellant has further contended that the finding arrived at by the Land Acquisition Judge was based on surmises and conjectures. The claimant could not produce any reliable and convincing evidence to show that the amount awarded was inadequate, and thereby, the claimant failed to discharge his burden. The appellant has further contended that the finding arrived at by the Land Acquisition Judge was based on surmises and conjectures. The Exhibit P/3 and P/4, sale deeds, could not be the basis of determining the adequate compensation, in as much as, the land of Exhibit - P/3 and Exhibit P/4 are situated inside the Bazar and about 2/3 furlongs away from the acquired land, and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard both sides. From the evidence on records it appears that the respondent's land measuring 140 acres was acquired by the government along with other land. The possession was however taken by the Government on 25.9.72 vide SDO's letter dated 25.9.72. Exhibit - P/2.The acquired land is situated in the forefront leading to Sonamura Bazar. The construction of the road began from the Respondent's acquired land. A few months prior to the acquisition of the land as per the said notification dated 24.10.72 issued under section 4 of the Act, on 30.3. 72, one Dipak Saha purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Karas, 2 Krantas and 10 Dhurs from Mahendra Saha and Sachindra Saha of Sonamura town at a considera­tion of Rs. 10,500/- by registered sale deed.This deed was exhibited and marked as Exhibit P/3. Similarly, on 15.3.72 Sri Santi Bhusan Guha and others purchased another plot of land measuring .007 dec. (1 Kara, 1 Kranta 4 Dhurs) for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by yet another registered deed on 15.3.72. This sale deed was exhibited and marked as Exhibit -P/4. The land Exhibit-P/3 situates near to the acquired land, i.e. about 2 to 3 Kanis from Sonamura bazar. The land under Exhibit-P/4 is just near to the land of Exhibit-P/3. The acquired land situates within a radius of one furlong from Sonamura Police Station, Hospital, Office and school etc. The respondent-claimant purchased the said land for a saw mill and constructed a hut thereon for that purpose. The respondent made a claim of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per Kani. 6. Some land belonging to some other persons were also acquired for the purpose of construction of the road, however, those land situated behind the respondent's acquired land. The respondent-claimant purchased the said land for a saw mill and constructed a hut thereon for that purpose. The respondent made a claim of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per Kani. 6. Some land belonging to some other persons were also acquired for the purpose of construction of the road, however, those land situated behind the respondent's acquired land. These lands are low lying marshy land. But the land purchased by Ext-P/3 and Ext-P/4 are just near to the respondent's acquired land. The witness, OPW-1, Harisankar Sarkar, a Surveyor of Land Acquisition Office, also deposed in this case. According to him, the land of respondent is a viti land and the Collector gave the award after consideration of the two sale- deeds, marked as Exhibit -D/1 and D/2. The lands under Exhibits D/1 and D/2 appear to be little away from Sonamura bazar. 7. Mr. D.B. Sengupta, learned Government Advocate, has strenuously urged before me that the Land Acquisition Judge committed manifest error of law by making the award in enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 60,000.00 per Kani, solely relying on Exhibit-P/3 and P/4. According to Mr. Sengupta the Land Acquisition Judge should not have considered the valuation given in the two sale deeds, Exts. P/3 and P/4, without first determining the exact distance from the acquired land. Besides, according to him, the land under the said two sale deeds are small parcels of land. The price fetched in the said sale deeds cannot determine the market value of the respondent's acquired land for the reason that the price of a small area cannot be an indicative of the market value of a large plot of land. 8. Section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compen­sation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the court should take into account, inter alia, the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The market value means the price at which a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to the existing conditions with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility. The said section of the Act is designed to award just and fair compensation for acquisition of land. The market value means the price at which a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to the existing conditions with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility. The said section of the Act is designed to award just and fair compensation for acquisition of land. In ascertaining the market value, the court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price. The price paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would certainly be the best piece of evidence. The price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification may also be the basis for assessment of compensation. 9. It is however true that a value fetched for a small plot of land cannot be the basis for valuation of the land comprising large area. This view has consistently been expressed by the Supreme Court in various decisions. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 , the Apex Court held that the price fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extent of land and it has to be understood in its proper perspective. In the said case, the Supreme Court approved the reduction of 40% of the value of the retail price to a wholesale price. A simple method of valuing land wholesale from retail prices is to take anything between one and half one-third, according to circumstances of the expected gross valuation as the whole price. 10. Similarly, in another decision Chimmanlal Hargovind das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , the Supreme Court approved the deduction of 25% for largeness of the block. It was further held that the valuation by reducing 25% from the price of a small plot of land in respect of a large plot cannot be said to be wrong. 11. In the instant case, from the evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the land of Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/4 are similarly situated and just nearby to the acquired land of the respondent. The land acquired from other persons referred to are away from Sonamura bazar and also away from the acquired land. 11. In the instant case, from the evidence on record it is abundantly clear that the land of Exhibit-P/3 and Exhibit-P/4 are similarly situated and just nearby to the acquired land of the respondent. The land acquired from other persons referred to are away from Sonamura bazar and also away from the acquired land. Besides, these are low lying marshy land having less value and therefore, value of these lands cannot be a guiding price for determination of the value of the acquired land. It has also been urged mat the owners of the adjacent acquired land accepted the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. There is no evidence to show under what circumstances such owners accepted the offer of the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, this cannot be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the land. The market value can be determined as per the guiding principles laid down under section 23 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Judge after consider­ing all the evidence on record came to the finding that the value of land @ Rs. 60,000.00 per Kani was reasonable and adequate. While coming to such finding, the price fetched in respect of the land of Exhibit P/3 and Exhibit P/4 was though considered but it was reduced. Exhibit P/3 and Exhibit P/4 were transacted more or less in the same time i.e. a few months prior to section 4 notification of the Act. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the Land Acquisition Judge is not erroneous and I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. It may be mentioned here that in an appeal against an award or grant of compensation, the appellate court would not interfere unless there is a wrong application of any well settled principle of law or unless there is something to show that the award suffers from serious legal infirmities. Merely because on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion is not enough to interfere with the award. Interference is called for only when the judgment cannot be supported by reason of wrong application of a principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked. A Court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. Interference is called for only when the judgment cannot be supported by reason of wrong application of a principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked. A Court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. In the instant case, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed with costs.