JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. The correctness of the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned Judge, Land Acquisition, West Tripura at the market value of Rs. 85,000/- per kani by uniform rate in respect of 47.56 acres of land has been called into question in this appeal. 2. A compact block of land measuring 47.56 acres belonging to the Respondents falling within Khatian Nos. 2109 (Jer), 2110 (Jer), 2111 (Jer), 2179 (Jer) and 2180 (Jer) was acquired by the Collector, Land Acquisition, West Tripura in terms of the Notification No. F.9 (12)-ACQ/REV/IV/85, dated 11.12.1985 of the Revenue Department published in the Tripura Gazette Extraordinary on 16.12.1985 for the purpose of extension of Oil Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC for short) base complex. In their statement of claims, the Respondents claimed market value of the acquired land at the flat rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per kani, but the Collector, instead of assessing the market value thereof in that manner, classified the same into Tilla, Nal, Lunga, Bagan, Chara, Path, Viti and Basti and fixed the market values at the following different rates: 3. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, on the application of the Respondents, the matter was referred to the LA Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called LA Act for short) for enhancement of the compensation. Before the learned LA Judge, the claimants-Respondents examined as many as seven witnesses to substantiate their claims and exhibited ten documents, which are sale deeds of lands within the vicinity of the acquired land and previous awards made in other land acquisition reference cases. Some documentary evidence such as sale deeds and maps were adduced on behalf of the Collector while the ONGC examined one TCS Officer attached to them to prove their case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned LA Judge passed the award dated 24.12.2004, which is under challenge herein. According to the learned LA Judge, if the different market values so fixed by the Collector were taken to the average, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs. 46,666/-, say, Rs. 47,000/- per kani. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned LA Judge passed the award dated 24.12.2004, which is under challenge herein. According to the learned LA Judge, if the different market values so fixed by the Collector were taken to the average, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs. 46,666/-, say, Rs. 47,000/- per kani. The learned LA Judge took the view that since the acquired land is a compact block of land, which was acquired in its entirely and not on piece-meal basis, there was no valid reason for the classification for the purpose of fixing different rates and that the Court was to ascertain the average price of the total land on the basis of comparable sale transactions in respect of lands lying in the immediate vicinity of the acquired land. The learned Judge accordingly held: 40. In applying the method of average this Court takes into account the valuation of land under Exbt. 8 and the lands of Exbts. D, E & F more particularly Exbt. E which involves an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per kani on the ground that from the evidence of the referring-claimants the land of Exbt. 8 can be treated to be comparable with the acquired land having regard to its location only and Exbt. E can be taken into consideration for the reasons that it is also within sheet No. 5 land presumably near by the land of acquired area. Thus, the average valuation comes to Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 1,70,000/- divided by 2 = Rs. 85,000/- per kani. 4. In coming to the foregoing conclusion, the learned Judge relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1996 SC 3347 . The learned Judge noted that the Respondents could not produce any comparable sale deeds in respect of lands adjacent to the acquired land excepting Exbt. 8, which was of a land situates about one and half furlong away from the acquired land and that even the subject matter of this sale deed related to sale transaction between persons belonging to non-tribals and that the sale deeds in Exbt. 4, 5, 6 and 7 did not pertain to comparable lands and, as such, could not form satisfactory basis for ascertaining the true market value of the acquired land. 4, 5, 6 and 7 did not pertain to comparable lands and, as such, could not form satisfactory basis for ascertaining the true market value of the acquired land. The learned LA Judge also recorded the findings, on the basis of the deposition of the claimants that the claimants tried to sell the acquired land but could not find a buyer for such a big plot of land. From this, he concluded that since there was restriction against transfer in terms of Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to TLR & LR Act), such holding could not be compared with lands belonging to non-tribals, who could dispose of their holdings at their free will. The learned Judge also recorded the findings that there was no evidence of any demand for purchase of the acquired land by universal purchaser from the Respondents and that the acquired land was neither a productive land nor was it, at the time of its acquisition, having any drainage, roads, electricity or water supply thereon. According to the learned LA Judge, the sale deed Exbt. 8 was in respect of a land situate at a distance of about half a furlong away from the acquired land and was proximate in point of time and the same was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per kani. He also found that the sale deed at Exbt. E produced by the Collector on behalf of the Collector was in respect of 5 gandas lying contiguous to the acquired land and the same was sold at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per kani. He, therefore, took into account these two sale deeds for working out the average price of the acquired land and thereafter determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 85,000/- per kani. 5. Assailing the method adopted by the learned LA Judge for fixing the market value of the acquired land, Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior Counsel for the ONGC, drawing our attention to the maps prepared by the Revenue authorities, which are at Ext. 'C' series, vehemently submits that when the acquired land abutted only a small portion of the main road and a major portion thereof did not have any access to the main road, the sale transaction in Exbt. 'C' series, vehemently submits that when the acquired land abutted only a small portion of the main road and a major portion thereof did not have any access to the main road, the sale transaction in Exbt. 8, which is merely for 0.08 acre, cannot be taken into account for determining the market value of a large tract of land like the acquired land. It is his contention that the market value of a large chunk of land like the acquired land (measuring 47.56 acres) cannot be determined on the basis of the price fetched by sale of infinitesimally small extent of land reflected in the sale deed at Exbt. 8 (which measures a mere 0.08 acre), and in doing so, the learned LA Judge has committed illegality and betrayed non-application of mind. He further contends that the prices obtained from successive sales of the same property may be validly taken into account for working out the average price of the acquired land, but the process of averaging of all and sundry kinds of property made by the learned LA Judge in the instant case is not permissible in law. The learned senior Counsel also submits that on the admitted position of the parties that the acquired land belonged to a member of Scheduled Tribes, whose right to transfer is restricted by law, the learned LA Judge misdirected himself in determining the market value of the acquired land on par with lands belonging to non-tribals, whose right to dispose of their lands is unfettered. According to the learned senior Counsel, in fixing the market value of such holding, which is in the nature of a restricted nature, reasonable deduction ought to have been made by him for arriving at a just compensation. It is thus contended by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants that the compensation awarded by the learned LA Judge to the Respondents is based on surmise, conjecture and guess and is, accordingly, exorbitant, imaginary and miserably fails to reflect the correct market value of the acquired land. He also points out that the claimant-Respondents, who are like Plaintiffs in a civil suit, have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation awarded by the learned LA Judge is inadequate. 6. Per contra, Mr. He also points out that the claimant-Respondents, who are like Plaintiffs in a civil suit, have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation awarded by the learned LA Judge is inadequate. 6. Per contra, Mr. S.M. Panda, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, in supporting the impugned judgment and award, contends that the assessment of market value therein has finally rectified the glaring mistake committed by the Collector, Land Acquisition in classifying a non-classifiable land. Pointing out that the acquired land is a compact block of land lying just on the outskirt of a fast growing city like Agartala, which is a State capital as well, the fixation of the market value thereof at the uniform rate of Rs. 85,000/- per kani correctly reflected the market value prevailing at the time of its acquisition and, as such, no interference is called for. The learned Counsel for the Respondents emphasizes the fact that no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Collector, nor was the Assessment Note produced to justify the classification of the acquired land for awarding differential compensations. Therefore, the learned LA Judge was legitimately entitled to draw adverse inference against the Collector in the case. The learned senior Counsel also relied on the depositions of O.P.W. No. 1, who is no less a person than the witness produced by the ONGC itself, for contending that the acquired land has immense potentiality inasmuch as it was a fast developing area having all modern facilities. According to the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents, the manner in which the market value of the acquired land was assessed by the learned Judge and the fixation of the market value in accordance therewith are perfectly in order and do not suffer from any infirmity. He thus submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. He also adds that no distinction can be made between a land belonging to a tribal and a non-tribal for fixation of market value of a land acquired in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act. 7. In a long line of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, the principles for determination of the market value for land acquired under the provisions of the LA Act have now been firmly established. 7. In a long line of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, the principles for determination of the market value for land acquired under the provisions of the LA Act have now been firmly established. The difficulty, however, lies in proper application of those principles to the facts arising out of a particular case. The burden of proving that the award made by the Collector, Land Acquisition or Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate or that such authority proceeded on a wrong premise or applied a wrong principles of law is always upon the claimant. Market value means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land. The well-known three methods are: (i) The price paid in comparable sales. (ii) Capitalization of rents or profits. (iii) Evaluation by experts. Each method is for determining the price which a willing purchaser would pay for the land to a willing seller under normal conditions. The first method is to be resorted to first. But if sufficient or satisfactory material is not available for applying this method, the second method may be resorted to. The third method is to be resorted to only when material for the application of the first two methods is not available. The best evidence to prove what a willing purchaser would pay for the land under acquisition would be the evidence of sales of comparable properties, proximate in point of time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing the same or similar advantages and subject to the same or similar disadvantages. But in many cases, comparable sale transactions are heard to come by. For instance, like in the instant case, the sale deeds projected to be in respect of lands lying within the vicinity of the acquired land pertain to small plots of land while the acquired land is a large chunk of land measuring 47.56 acres. 8. It must be noted that generally instances of sale of a small plot of land could not form acceptable basis for determining the market value of a large tract of land. 8. It must be noted that generally instances of sale of a small plot of land could not form acceptable basis for determining the market value of a large tract of land. In P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer (1995) 2 SCC 395, the Apex Court held that it is a matter of common knowledge that the large extents of lands if are to be sold, they cannot fetch the value which may be fetched by sale of small extents of land and that it is for that reason courts do not ordinarily accept the value fetched by small extents as the basis for determination of the value of large extents of acquired land. However, the fact that there can be exception to this rule has also been recognized by the Apex Court in that case. This is succinctly explained by the Apex Court in the subsequent decision in Ravindra Narain v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 , which reads thus: 7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. Even then, how far the price fetched by sale of small plots can be made the basis for determining the market value of a large chunk of land must necessarily depend on the fact situation including that as to why the purchase was made, in each case, which has come on its record. However, when the value fetched by small plots is of building plots in a building layout made out of a large plot, it has to be seen whether the large acquired land, if is laid out into small building plots and sold, whether they could fetch the price fetched by sale of small building plots in the already developed building layout. Then, the market value of the acquired land has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of small plots after making allowances for such factors as loss of land out of the acquired land to be used for roads, drains, parks, the expenditure involved in developing the layout, waiting involved in sale of plots and several other factors which will necessarily reduce the wholesale price of the acquired land. 9. An alternative method for determining the market value of large extents of acquired lands vis-a-vis the value fetched by small plots is a belting system. In Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab (1997) 1 SCC 330, the Apex Court accepted and applied the method of valuation by belts or belting system where the acquired land constituted one block on the principle that the entire area thereof was not similarly situated or did not possess the same or similar advantages and benefits. Belting system is a system of carving out land by the land acquisition authorities into different belts or blocks for awarding different compensation. But there is no question of applying belting system if the acquired land is small since uniform value can be obtained by for the entire land. There can be no doubt that when the court has to deal with valuation of an extensive plot of land in an urban area, the strip that adjoint/abuts an important highway National/State highway will fetch higher price than what is in the rear, for obvious reason of potential user or commercial exploitation. But the valuation of lands by belts must be done in a scientific and logical manner. A rational basis for determining the depth of each belt should be the scientific approach. Such basis may be formulated thus: (i) The immediate contiguity to the main road. (ii) Easy access to the road where there is no frontage on the main road. These are the major factors which should be taken into consideration in a belting system. Therefore, if different values are adopted without any intelligible data, such valuation cannot be accepted see Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (1972) 4 SCC 236 . (ii) Easy access to the road where there is no frontage on the main road. These are the major factors which should be taken into consideration in a belting system. Therefore, if different values are adopted without any intelligible data, such valuation cannot be accepted see Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (1972) 4 SCC 236 . Though some discordant notes were struck by the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, this system of carving out land by the laid acquisition authorities into different belts or blocks for awarding differential compensation was approved by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 121 and in the recent case of Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi reported in (2000)6 SCC 326 by stating that belting is a settled rule of law to award differential compensation. That was a case in which the acquired land abutted the main road Jullundar to Pathankot and the Apex Court was called upon to examine the legality or arbitrariness of the belting of the land abutting the road upto a depth of 22 karams and thereafter determining the compensation separately to the rest of the land. Holding that the land abutting the main road would no doubt command higher potentiality for the purpose of shopping and that the entire extent of 56 acres of the acquired land would not have the same value, the Apex Court upheld the determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre upto 22 karams and at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per acre for the rest of the land. 10. 1,60,000/- per acre upto 22 karams and at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per acre for the rest of the land. 10. On a conspectus of the decisions of the Apex Court discussed in the foregoing, it becomes clear that where a vast tract of land is acquired and the sale deeds or previous awards in land acquisition cases produced by the parties are in respect of lands situated within the vicinity of the acquired lands, which are also proximate in point of time but pertain to a small plots, it is not permissible for the Land Acquisition Judges to find a short-cut solution based on conjecture or surmise or guess, and they must make an endeavour to determine the correct market value of the acquired land by applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court either in P. Ram Reddy Case (Supra) i.e., by taking into account the relevancy of the market value of a large area of land vis-a-vis a small plot of land based on the principles laid down therein or in Ravindra Narain case (Supra) by resorting to belting system where the acquired land abutts a highway/main road or katcha roads as highlighted earlier. 11. From the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and O.P.W. 1 and the memo of appeal, the following materials can be gathered: (a) The acquired land undoubtedly abutted Agartala-Bishalgarh road on the eastern side. Dukli road and Takarjala road also obviously abutted the acquired land, but it is not clear which side of the acquired land was abutted by such roads nor is it clear whether such roads were blacktop roads at the time of the acquisition. (b) The ONGC base complex is located within 2 kilometers from the acquired land and the fact that the acquired land was for the purpose of extension of this complex could assume considerable importance in determining its market value. FCI Godown, Jute Mills, State Bank of India, the branches of S.B.I. and U.B.I., ONGC School, Telephone Exchange, Doordarshan Centre, etc. are located within the near vicinity of the acquired land, but no evidence is available to establish that these offices were already in existence at the time of its acquisition. FCI Godown, Jute Mills, State Bank of India, the branches of S.B.I. and U.B.I., ONGC School, Telephone Exchange, Doordarshan Centre, etc. are located within the near vicinity of the acquired land, but no evidence is available to establish that these offices were already in existence at the time of its acquisition. Since these offices are located at a distance ranging from 200 meters to 2 kilometers, and if they were proved to have already existed at the time of the acquisition, they could have assisted the learned LA Judge in holding that hectic development was taking place in the area of the acquired land and that there was already pressure on land in that area thereby inflating the market value of the acquired land. (c) Badarghat market was already there within half a kilometer from the acquired land whereas Milan Chakra was, at the time of the acquisition, lying within one kilometer from the acquired land. Similarly, a Government orchard, Sidhi Ashram and Ram Thakur College, which are located quite adjacent to the acquired land, were found to be in existence at the time of the acquisition. (d) At the time of the acquisition, there were no water supply point or electricity supply on the acquired land but there is no evidence that such facilities could be easily available on the acquired land, if applied for. 12. As already noted earlier, whether the market value of the acquired land could be determined on the basis of the market value of a small plot of land or on belting system, the first and paramount duty of the LA Judge is to ascertain the nature of the land, it's topography, the situation of the land vis-a-vis the city or the town which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population, its suitability for putting up buildings, be it residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be, its immediate contiguity to a highway/main road or its easy access to the road where there is no frontage on the main road/highway, etc. We have already found from the materials on record that neither the Respondents, on whom the initial burden lies, nor the Appellants, were able to produce sufficient evidence to assist the LA Judge for proper assessment of the market value of the acquired land. We have already found from the materials on record that neither the Respondents, on whom the initial burden lies, nor the Appellants, were able to produce sufficient evidence to assist the LA Judge for proper assessment of the market value of the acquired land. But the failure of the parties to furnish such materials cannot absolve the LA Judge from making objective valuation of the market value of the acquired land. On the duty of the LA Judge, this is what the Apex Court says in Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasive Rao (1997) 6 SCC 41 at para 11: The Court is enjoined to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market, the nature of the user of the land or which the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, the income derived therefrom and all other relevant attending circumstances. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable. In other words, it must be just equivalent to what the land is capable of fetching in the open market from a willing and prudent buyer. Therefore, the Court is required to sit in the armchair of a bona fide willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek an answer to the question whether in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value as the Court has proposed. Incidentally, we may also at this stage deal with the submissions made on behalf of the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents on the impact of the non-examination of any witness and non-production of the Assessment Note by the Collector in the course of trial. The law on this point has also been settled by the Apex Court. In P. Ram Reddy case (Supra), it was tersely stated by the Apex Court in Chaturbhuj Pande v. Collector AIR 1969 SC 255 in the following manner: It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants have not been effectively cross-examined. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal, but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal, but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. In land acquisition references before civil courts, when witnesses give oral evidence in support of the claims of the claimants for higher compensation, the ineffective cross-examination of such witnesses, is not an uncommon feature if regard is had to the manner in which such claims are contested in courts on behalf of the public authorities. If courts were to accept such statements of witnesses as true merely because they are not subjected to proper or ineffective cross-examination or because evidence in rebuttal thereof has not been adduced, it would amount to doling out public money to the claimants far in excess of their legitimate entitlement for just compensation payable for their lands. 13. Instead of assessing the market value of the acquired land on the materials and principles indicated above, the learned LA Judge proceeded to adopt a short-cut solution to the controversy and considered the sale deed at Exbt. 8, in which a small plot of land measuring 0.08 acre situate at a distance of one and half furlong away from the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per kani, and the sale deed at Exbt. E for the land contiguous to the acquired land, which was sold at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per kani, for working out the average price and thereafter determined the market value thereof at Rs. 85,000/- per kani by that process of averaging. Averages based on the value of lands approximate to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages are often fallacious. Averages of successive sales of the same property are, however, different, and can be considered but not when they are based on sales of all and sundry kinds of property. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the averaging method adopted by the learned LA Judge for determining the market value of the acquired land is unwarranted. The learned LA Judge was enjoined by law to assess the market value in accordance with the well-established principles laid down by the Apex Court, We, however, find considerable force in the submission of Mr. The learned LA Judge was enjoined by law to assess the market value in accordance with the well-established principles laid down by the Apex Court, We, however, find considerable force in the submission of Mr. D.B. Sengupta, the learned senior Counsel for the Respondents that the classification of land into tilla, chara, nal, lunga, pukur par, viti etc. made under the TLR & LR Act for the purpose of preparation of record of rights cannot be used for determining the market value of the acquired land especially when building potentiality or contiguity to main road are the normal basis for determining the market value of an acquired land. 14. Coming now to the contention of Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants that the land acquired herein, which belonged to a tribal and which cannot be transferred except in accordance with Section 187 of the TLR & LR Act, cannot have the same market value of lands belonging to non-tribals, no definite findings have been reached in this regard by the learned LA Judge in his award. Admittedly, lands belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tripura cannot be transferred to a non-tribal without the previous permission of the Collector in the prescribed manner. That being the position, such lands are not exactly freehold lands, which can be disposed of by the owner at his sweet will. The holdings are thus in the nature of restricted tenures. No decision having a direct bearing on a case of this nature has been shown to us or is available. In Spl. L.A.O. v. Sushilaben AIR 1972 Guj 189 , the Gujarat High Court made a distinction between a restriction simpliciter and a restriction relaxable on payment of a certain amount. Their Lordships held: In our opinion, it would not be right to value the land under acquisition at a discount merely by reason of the fact that there is a mere restriction on its alienation. So far, we are in agreement, with respect, with the view expressed by the Calcutta and the Nagpur High Courts in the aforesaid decision. But that principle will be of no avail when we are confronted with the questions as regards the valuation of land where the transferability depends on an obligation to pay a sum of money to the State. But that principle will be of no avail when we are confronted with the questions as regards the valuation of land where the transferability depends on an obligation to pay a sum of money to the State. When the obligation carries with it a money content, the aforesaid principle cannot apply. 15. However, in the same judgment, the High Court has made some observations to the effect that the statutory restrictions would be important while determining the market value. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Govindrao Naraynrao Ghorpade 1985 Mh. LJ 170agreed with this view by holding that the proper amount of compensation must be determined keeping in view such clog or restriction. The quantum of payment, which enables a person to get rid of such clog or restriction, would no doubt be relevant while determining the market value of the land with a restriction. From this discussion, it is clear that mere restriction on the transferability cannot diminish the market value of the acquired land. However, if some payment is required for enabling a person to get rid of such restriction, the quantum of payment would no doubt be relevant while determining the market value of the acquired land. This would be become apparent from the decision of the Apex Court in Spl. L.A.O. v. M.S. Seshagiri Rao AIR 1968 SC 1045 . In that case, the Government had granted a certain land to the claimant with a reservation that the grantee shall surrender the land to the Government without claiming any compensation if the Government would require the land for its own use. The Government instead of exercising this right initiated proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act and the question arose as to whether the aforesaid term in the grant would have any relevancy in fixing the amount of compensation. The Apex Court held that the measure of market value would be what a willing purchaser would pay for the land which is subject to the Government option as mentioned above. The Apex Court further held therein that where the interest of the owner is clogged by the right of the State, the compensation payable to the owner is only the market value of that interest subject to the clog. The Apex Court further held therein that where the interest of the owner is clogged by the right of the State, the compensation payable to the owner is only the market value of that interest subject to the clog. A comparative reading of the aforesaid decisions unmistakably reveals that whether in a given case, the value of a property with a statutory restriction would be less than the value of a property without such restriction will necessarily depends upon the nature of restriction/clog on the holding. What are the nature of restrictions imposed upon a land owned by a tribal or whether any payment is required for getting rid of such restrictions and, if so, what is the quantum of payment stipulated therein for that purpose, should have been considered by the learned LA Judge, but that was not done. 16. We are thus constrained to observe that a number of relevant factors for objective assessment of the market value of the acquired land has not been taken into consideration by the learned LA Judge. If the learned LA Judge had taken the trouble of applying the correct principles of law laid down by the Apex Court for ascertaining the true nature of land, keeping in mind the relevant materials, and if unavailable, by requiring the parties to adduce further/additional evidence and/or by calling for the relevant records from the concerned authorities, and thereafter apply the correct principles laid down by the Apex Court as reproduced earlier, he could have determined the correct market value of the acquired land, which could be less, or more, than the one assessed by him in the impugned award. Having not done so, the next question to be determined is whether the case be remanded to the learned LA Judge at this point of time for fresh trial in accordance with the observations made by us in the foregoing. It may be noted that the instant land acquisition proceeding started in 1985 and almost twenty years have lapsed by this time. The record shows that the case moved from one court to another without any end in sight. The record further shows that the original landowner has passed away in the interregnum without enjoying the benefit of his litigation. It may be noted that the instant land acquisition proceeding started in 1985 and almost twenty years have lapsed by this time. The record shows that the case moved from one court to another without any end in sight. The record further shows that the original landowner has passed away in the interregnum without enjoying the benefit of his litigation. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to take the view that a final solution to this prolonged and protracted litigation must be figured out to save the ONGC from the claimants or the claimants from the ONGC. One sensible approach comes to our mind. In Executive Director Case (Supra) where the pieces of land forming the subject-matter of acquisition are large pieces of land whereas evidence adduced by the landowners consisted of transactions relating to small piece of lands or plots, the Apex Court was confronted with very skeletal evidence adduced on behalf of the landowners with respect to the location of the acquired land so as to enable it to record satisfactory finding that the transactions were of land comparable with the one under acquisition. Finding that the lands were acquired in the early eighties and by that time a period of 20 years had elapsed, the Apex Court adopted "reasonable solution approach" to put an end to the litigation and declined to remand the case to record further evidence. Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeal by discounting the rates of compensation arrived at by the High Court by 25% approximately. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we also deem it appropriate to follow this reasonable solution approach of the Apex Court to give a quietus to this litigation. 17. In the instant case, the learned LA Judge by a process of averaging the prices of lands, stated to be lying within a stone's throw from the acquired land, reflected in the sale deeds at Exbt. 8 and Exbt. E respectively, determined the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs. 85,000/- per kani. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to deduct 30% from the market value awarded by the learned LA Judge. In the result, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the extent that the Respondents be paid the compensation at the market value of Rs. 85,000/- per kani. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to deduct 30% from the market value awarded by the learned LA Judge. In the result, the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the extent that the Respondents be paid the compensation at the market value of Rs. 60,500/- (Rupees sixty thousand and five hundred) only per kani. We order accordingly. In addition, the Respondents shall be entitled to other statutory benefits. The parties are directed to bear their own cost. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.