JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘L.A.Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.02.2012 passed by learned L.A. Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Civil Misc.(LA) 51 of 2009. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. A. Roy Barman for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. Shekhar Dutta for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.9, i.e., the L.A. Collector. 3. For construction of NH-44/A from Manu to Simlowng at Mouja-Manu under Manu TK of Longtharai Valley Sub-Division in Dhalai District land measuring 0.02 acres of Bastu class belonged to Sushil Chandra Dey, the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 8, was acquired along with other land by Notification dated 26.12.2003 made under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the L.A. Act followed by declaration dated 27.04.2004 made under Section 6 of the L.A. Act and compensation towards price of land was fixed @ Rs.6,00,000/- per kani. The land holder received the compensation under protest with a prayer to make reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly, the L.A. Collector made the reference which has been registered as Case No. Civil Misc.(LA) 51 of 2009. 4. In the course of trial, the referring claimants as well as the L.A. Collector submitted claim statement and counter statement respectively and thereafter respondent No.3 examined himself as PW1 on behalf of the referring claimants and relied on a khatian, a map and certified copy of one sale deed, i.e., sale deed No.1-332 dated 18.05.1998 marked as Exbt.1 series. On behalf of the respondent-L.A. Collector one witness, namely, Arabinda Dey, a Amin of the Office of the District Magistrate, was examined as DW1 and some land valuation charts and sale deeds were also proved, which were marked as Exbt.-A series. 5. Learned L.A. Judge by impugned judgment and award dated 10.02.2012 enhanced the compensation towards price of land @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani from that of Rs.6,00,000/- per kani as was awarded by the L.A. Collector. 6. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Roy Barman, that the learned L.A. Judge did not rely upon the sale instance proved by the referring claimants, but enhanced the compensation towards price of land from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani without assigning any valid reason based on evidence. 6. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Roy Barman, that the learned L.A. Judge did not rely upon the sale instance proved by the referring claimants, but enhanced the compensation towards price of land from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani without assigning any valid reason based on evidence. Rs.6,00,000/- per kani was awarded taking into consideration of the potentials of the land and in the absence of any evidence that the price was inadequate, the learned L.A. Judge would not enhance the price of the acquired land from that what was fixed by the L.A. Collector. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta, appearing for the claimant-respondents submitted that though the sale instance has not been relied by the learned L.A. Judge, there is evidence that the land is most potential land situated near the market and other important Government establishments situated by the side of the National Highway and so, the enhancement of compensation is not totally unjustified and this Court may uphold the award made by the learned L.A. Judge. 8. Both side adduced oral and documentary evidence. The respondent-L.A.Collector relied on the valuation chart of the District Magistrate & Collector. What was the basis of that valuation chart nothing is stated in the evidence of DW1. In his evidence DW1 simply stated that proper compensation has been awarded by the L.A. Collector based on the market price. The assessment note of the L.A. Collector is placed on record. It shows that the L.A. Collector classified the land in different blocks. But what was the basis of classification of different blocks and how the rates were fixed for particular block has not been clarified. Anyway, while deciding a reference made under Section 18 of the L.A.Act, the learned L.A. Judge was supposed to consider the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned L.A. Judge. 9. Burden lies on the referring claimants to prove that they were entitled to compensation at a higher rate. Article 31A of the Constitution prescribes that the compensation should not be less than the market price for such compulsory acquisition of land. It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated at Mouja-Manu and it is not disputed that acquired land is not far away from the important Government establishments and market. It is a Bastu class of land and that is not disputed. It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated at Mouja-Manu and it is not disputed that acquired land is not far away from the important Government establishments and market. It is a Bastu class of land and that is not disputed. A Bastu class of land situated by the side of National Highway, not far away from the market and Government establishment, may be fit for future use for better purpose, such as commercial purpose etc. So, under such circumstances, though there is no specific evidence as to what would be the increase of price in future, a decision based on assumption and presumption cannot be altogether said to be a wrong decision. Some sorts of assumption, some sorts of hypothesis, must be reasonable, based on evidence, has to be applied in every cases of acquisition of land while fixing the compensation for acquisition. 10. Though the learned L.A. Judge has not assigned specific reason, but he has observed that the acquired land is not far away from Manu market and it is a Bastu class of land and considering the potentiality and other factors, he considered the increase of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Though it has not been elaborated as to what were the other factors, but I find in the evidence that it was situated by the side of the National Highway and very near to the Government establishments and market. So, the increase in the compensation cannot be said to be altogether without any evidence and hence, I find no justification at all to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned L.A. Judge and the appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 11. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.