JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against Judgment & award dated 23.12.2010 passed by learned LA Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Misc. (LA) 50 of 2009. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. Bidyut Majumder for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. Sekhar Dutta for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3(a) to 3(c) and learned counsel, Mr. S. Dutta for respondent No.4. 3. O.50 acres of 'bastu', 'Layekpatit' & 'nal' class of land belonged to Subodh Chandra Paul the predecessor of respondent Nos.1,2 & 3(a) to 3(c) located at Mouja Manu was acquired along with other lands of other land holders by notification dated 26.12.2003 made under Section 4 read with Section 17 of LA Act for construction of NH-44/A from Manu to Simlowng at Mouja Manu under Manu Teheshil Kachari of Longtharai Valley Sub-division in Dhalai District. The declaration was made on 27.04.2004. In due course LA Collector fixed compensation @ Rs.30,000/- for 'layekpatit' class of land, Rs.50,000/- for ' nal' class of land, Rs.60,000/- for 'bastu' class of land. The land holders received compensation under protest with a request to make a reference for proper determination of the compensation as per Section 18 of the LA Act and, accordingly, a reference was made and it was registered as Case No. Misc. (LA) 50 of 2009. 4. In course of hearing both side submitted claim statement and counter statement and thereafter the land holder i.e., the respondent No.2 Sudhangshu Ranjan Paul examined himself as PW-I and proved two sale instances i.e., the sale deed number 1-332 dated 20.08.1990 and another sale deed number 1-99 dated 29.05.1999. Those are marked as exbt-1 series as recorded in the deposition of the witness but while marking those documents it has been written as exbt-A series. 5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant or respondent No.4, LA Collector. 6. Learned LA Judge discarded the sale deeds proved on behalf of the referring-claimants holding that those sale instances were not of comparable land. But taking into consideration the potentiality and increase in the valuation of the land, enhanced the compensation towards price of land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 7. There is no dispute in respect of the classification and quantum of land and other properties attached to the land. Learned CGC, Mr. But taking into consideration the potentiality and increase in the valuation of the land, enhanced the compensation towards price of land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 7. There is no dispute in respect of the classification and quantum of land and other properties attached to the land. Learned CGC, Mr. Majumder emphatically submitted that no reason at all has been assigned by the learned LA Judge while flatly enhancing the price to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani, which is far more than the amount fixed by the LA Collector. It is the submission of the learned CGC that for making an assumption and/or for holding a view to increase the price, there must be something before the learned LA Judge otherwise the learned LA Judge cannot just at his whims and caprice increase the amount of compensation towards price of land. He has also submitted that a sale instance is the best document to fix the price of land under compulsory acquisition. While no such comparable sale instance has been proved by the referring-claimants the learned LA Judge would refuse to enhance the compensation towards the price of land. 8. On the contrary learned counsel, Mr. Dutta has submitted that though learned LA Judge did not rely upon those sale instances proved by the referring-claimants, but has taken into account the oral evidence adduced by the referring-claimants that the land is most potential land situated very near to the Government establishments and market and, therefore, the enhanced compensation is justified. He has also submitted that once the discretion is exercised by a Court of competent jurisdiction taking into account some sorts of evidence, this Court may not interfere in the judgment passed by learned LA Judge. 9. This is a settled position of law that a reference made under Section 18 of the LA Act should be decided like a suit, irrespective of what was considered by the LA Collector. The reference has to be decided on the basis of evidence and materials placed before the LA Judge and proved according to law. 10. Fixing of the price of the acquired land taking into account price obtained in a sale instances of comparable land is the best method to fix compensation because in normal course a transaction between a buyer and seller is held after vigorous bargain. 10. Fixing of the price of the acquired land taking into account price obtained in a sale instances of comparable land is the best method to fix compensation because in normal course a transaction between a buyer and seller is held after vigorous bargain. Here in the present case the referring-claimants produced two sale instances but learned LA Judge has rejected those two sale instances with the observation that those were not of comparable land. The referring-claimants did not challenge that finding of the learned LA Judge. However, after going through the evidence on record I find that the referring-claimants did not produce any map to show that the land of those sale instances were of comparable land. There is also nothing specific in the oral evidence of the referring-claimant that those were of comparable land. Therefore, the sale instances is found to be correctly discarded by the learned LA Judge. 11. The referring-claimant adduced oral evidence and in the oral evidence the referring-claimant clearly made statement that the acquired land is situated by the side of National Highway and acquired for the purpose of extension of the National Highway and that it is about 250 meters towards south of the new Motor Stand and about 200 meters away from Manu Primary Health Centre and the Office of Block Development Officer are also constructed near to it. This statement has not been disputed by the respondents and no evidence on behalf of the respondents adduced. So from this evidence it transpires that the acquired land is situated in the prime location of Mouja Manu adjacent to different Government establishments and by the side of the National Highway and, so, the potentiality of the acquired land undoubtedly was very high when the acquisition was made. Taking into account all those factors, though there was no sale instance of comparable land has been proved by the referring-claimants and though no reason has been assigned by the learned LA Judge, but since I find that there are some evidence on record that the compensation awarded by the LA Collector was not justified, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned LA Judge. In the assessment note of the LA Collector also I find no justification how the LA collector classified the land in different blocks and what was the basis of fixing the price by the LA Collector. In the assessment note of the LA Collector also I find no justification how the LA collector classified the land in different blocks and what was the basis of fixing the price by the LA Collector. Though, what is the reason for fixing the price by the LA Collector is not at all a factor to be taken into consideration while deciding the reference, but I take a note of it since it has been submitted by learned CGC that the learned LA Judge without any evidence and reasons increased the price abnormally. Price of the land near market area and near the Government establishments by the side of the National Highway cannot be said to be abnormally high while the price is fixed @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. So the rate so fixed by the learned LA Judge is not interfered and the appeal stands dismissed. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with the copy of the judgment.