ORDER Arun Mishra, J. This appeal has been filed u/s 147 of the Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 aggrieved by an award dt. 1-11-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Rewa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 37 of 2004. The facts lie in narrow compass. Late Shri Ramswaroop Verma was the owner of land admeasuring .90 acres situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rewa. He executed a Will in favour of the appellant; Sudarshan Kumar Verma in the year 1969. Late Ramswaroop got the land levelled with a view to install a petrol pump on the aforesaid land, however, he was not able to obtain the dealership license, hence, gave the land on lease for establishment of petrol pump to a third party, however he constructed a well and developed a road for the purpose of approaching the petrol pump. Land in question is adjacent to the National High-way No. 7 and in the construction of the well expenditure of Rs. 15,000/- had been incurred. Notification u/s 68(1) of the Town Improvement Trust Act, (hereinafter referred to "TIT Act") was issued on 22-8-1983, thereafter a notification under sub-section (1) of section 71 was published on 19-1-1984. A sum of Rs. 24,075/- was offered as compensation which appellant has refused to accept, accordingly reference was sought. It was claimed that compensation of Rs. 3,92,360/- ought to have been offered. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was incurred in levelling the land. In the reply filed by the respondent averments were denied, just offer of Rs. 24,075/- was made. Town Improvement Trust, Rewa stood dissolved w.e.f. 1-8-1994 by the M.P. Nagar Sudhar Nyas (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1994. On dissolution of the T.I.T. all the assets and liabilities by operation of law stood transferred to Municipal Corporation, Rewa after repeal of the TIT Act. The Reference Court has found that the valuation of the land was Rs. 50,000/- per acre, area of .88 acre existed not .90 as claimed by the objector. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards construction of the approach road towards petrol pump. Total compensation of Rs. 58,000/- has been awarded. Dissatisfied with the same this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of market value of the land. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Shri Avinash Zargar for the appellant has submitted that the price of Rs. 10,000/- towards construction of the approach road towards petrol pump. Total compensation of Rs. 58,000/- has been awarded. Dissatisfied with the same this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of market value of the land. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Shri Avinash Zargar for the appellant has submitted that the price of Rs. 21 has been offered considering the development that has taken place in the adjacent area, the land was within the Municipal Corporation, Rewa. Railway Station was located at 1/2 km. distance from the area in question, agriculture College was also at the same distance, considering the development that had already taken place at the time of acquisition of the land the price offered was inadequate, it was at least 50-60 per sq.ft. He has relied upon the sale deed (Bx.O/5) dt. 17-7-1984, for an area of 2500 sq.ft. sold for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. He has also relied upon the statements of Sudarshan Kumar Verma, Baijnath Singh, Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi, Bahadur Singh and Kamaljeet Singh Dang. Shri Anil Khare learned counsel appearing with Shri Rajeshwar Rao, on behalf of the respondent has submitted that it has been admitted by Baijnath Singh who was looking after the land on behalf of Late Ram Swaroop Singh has admitted that the value of the land was per acre. He has given the value of Rs. 80-90 thousand per acre in paragraph 4 of his deposition. Thus, the price determined at Rs. 50,000/- per acre by the Reference Court is proper. No case for interference was, thus, made out. Shri Anil Khare learned counsel appearing with Shri Rajeshwar Rao on behalf of the respondent has also raised an objection that the appeal would lie u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has relied upon the proviso to section 3 of the M.P. Nagar Sudhar Nyas (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1994, which provides that the proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day, before the Tribunal constituted u/s 73 of the repealed Act shall be continued and disposed by the Court of District Judge of the concerned District, where the acquired land is situated as if it is a reference made to that Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, he has submitted that an appeal should have been filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act not u/s 147 of TIT Act and consequently ad-valorem Court fee ought to have been paid. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Shri Avinash Zargar, on behalf of the appellant while refuting to the aforesaid submitted that the section 3 of Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1994 is for a limited purpose, it has not taken away the right of appeal which is vested u/s 147 of the TIT Act, thus, the appeal has been rightly preferred u/s 147 of the Town Improvement Trust Act. Accordingly the ad-valorem Court fee was not necessary in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shantilal vs. Town Improvement Trust, 1977 MPLJ 690 where this Court has opined that the Court fee payable on such appeal will be under Article 11, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. Section 3 of the M.P. Nagar Sudhar Nyas (Nirsan) Adhiniyam, 1994 contains Repeal and Savings, which is quoted below: 3. Repeal and Savings. -- (1) On the appointed day the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960 (No. 14 of 1961) shall stand repealed and all the Town Improvement Trusts shall stand dissolved. (2) All assets and liabilities of the Town Improvement Trusts on the appointed day shall stand vested in the Municipality in that area and such Municipality shall have all powers necessary to take possession of, recover and deal with such assets and discharge such liabilities. (3) Any proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day to which the Town Improvement Trust was a party shall be continued as if the Municipality was a party thereof in lieu of the Town Improvement Trust: Provided that the proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day, before the Tribunal constituted u/s 73 of the repealed Act shall continued and-disposed by the Court of District Judge of the concerned District, where the acquired land is situated as if it is a reference made to that Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894). A bare reading of the aforesaid clause makes it clear that section was enacted not for the purpose of filing an appeal, it cannot be said that the right of appeal has been expressly or implication taken away from section 147 of TIT Act and made u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. No doubt about it, proceedings has to be continued as if they were proceedings u/s 18 of the Act, but, by creating another fiction it cannot be stretched to take away the right of appeal expressly or by implication as provided u/s 147 as there is no reference in section 3 of Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1994 with respect to right of the appeal, we are of the opinion that the appeal has to be filed u/s 147 of the Town Improvement Trust Act. The Apex Court in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, has laid down that the pre-existing right of appeal continues to exist must, in its turn, necessarily imply that the old law which created that right of appeal must also exist to support the continuation of that right. As the old law continues to exist for the purpose of supporting the pre-existing right of appeal that old law must govern the exercise and enforcement of that right of appeal and there can be no question of the amended provision preventing the exercise of that right. Thus, it was held that the proviso to section 22(1) was inapplicable in such a situation and the jurisdiction of the authority has to be exercised under the old law which so continues to exist. The fiction has to be used for the purpose which has been enacted cannot be stretched any further. The Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Sadan K. Bormal and Another, has observed that for giving effect to a legal fiction Court must assume all such facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries, but the fiction must not be extended beyond the purpose it is created for, it cannot be extended by importing another fiction. When fiction contained in proviso to section 3 of the Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1994 does not deal with right of appeal at all, it cannot be extended by importing another fiction to confer right of an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. When fiction contained in proviso to section 3 of the Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1994 does not deal with right of appeal at all, it cannot be extended by importing another fiction to confer right of an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri Anil Khare learned counsel appearing with Shri Rajeshwar Rao on behalf of the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Garikapatti Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, in which the Apex Court has laid down that following five principles with respect to remedy of the suit, appeal etc., thus: (23) From the decisions cited above the following principles clearly emerge: (i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding, (ii) The right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right, (iii) The institution of the suit carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then in force are preserved to the parties thereto till the rest of the career of the suit. (iv) The right of appeal is a vested right and such a right to enter the Superior Court accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal. (v) This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. As envisaged in the fifth proposition laid down by the Apex Court a vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment, it has not been expressly or by implication taken away thus the right of appeal being a vested right continues u/s 147 of the TIT Act. Thus, Court-fee payable was under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, the ad-valorem Court fee is not required, thus, we reject the submission raised by the respondent's counsel. The main question on merit agitated is about the price of the land. We are not able to accept the submission of Shri Alok Aradhe, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Shri Avinash Zargar on behalf of the appellant that the value of the land was per sq.ft., no doubt about it that the sale deed dt. 17-7-1984 (0/5) was placed on record, however, the land in question was acquired earlier as per the notification issued on the aforesaid date on 22-8-1983 and 19-1-1994, the land covered under the sale deed was of village Gaurhar whereas the disputed land is situated in different location Suarantola Huzur District Rewa, land covered by sale deed that was for 50 x 50 sq.ft., as such considering it being a very small plot, it was not safe to rely upon the sale deed. More so in view of the categorical statement made by Baijnath Singh the claimant's witness No. 2, he has admitted that the value of the land in question was in acre, its value was Eighty to Ninety thousand per acre at the time of acquisition. This fact he has stated in examination-in-chief para 4 as well as in para 9 of the cross-examination. There is no other documentary evidence on record indicating that the valuation of the land was per sq.ft., as the land was located adjacent to the National High-way and it was mentioned in the valuation report of the year 1992 that the Railway Station was 1/2 km away, Bus-stand was 1 km away, College, School and Hospital were 1.5 km away, that has been supported by the statement of the claimant Sudarshan Kumar Verma and Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi who has stated that the Bus-stand is about 1.5 km away, whereas Bahadur Singh stated that the Bus-stand was 1.7 km away, the area was within the Municipal Corporation. Kamaleet Singh Dang has also stated about the location of the land. Kamaleet Singh Dang has also stated about the location of the land. Even with respect to per acre land there is no categorical documentary evidence adduced except oral statement, however, as determination of compensation is based upon the guess work the test is of prudent buyer the compensation has to be offered in such a case considering the facts that the land was adjacent to the National High-way, it would have fetched higher value and considering the location of Railway Station, Bus-station, college etc. from an area in question, we deem it appropriate to take value for .88 acre of the land at Rs. 50,000/-, .88 acre of land has been acquired by the Town Improvement Trust, though it was claimed .90 acre land was acquired, but, the Reference Court has found that an area .88 acre was acquired. The Reference Court has determined the compensation at Rs. 50,000/-per acre and the price offered for .88 acre was Rs. 38,000/- as per the price determined per acre, on correct computation the value for .88 acre was Rs. 44,000/-. We determine the compensation for .88 acre at Rs. 50,000/-. Remaining part of the award remain intact as that has not been assailed at bar. With the aforesaid modification in the award, we allow the appeal in part. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred in this appeal. Final Result : Allowed