JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against judgment and order dated 17.03.2012 passed by learned LA Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Misc.(LA) 41 of 2009. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. B. Majumder for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. S.S. Debnath who has appeared on behalf of learned counsel, Mr. D.K Biswas and Mr. G.K. Nama for the respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. For construction of NH 44/A from Manu to Simlowng at Mouja Manu under Manu Tehashil Kachari of Longtharai Valley Sub-Division in Dhalai District, land measuring 0.37 acres of 'Viti' & 'Bastu' classes belonged to respondent No.1, Fulmati Chakma along with other land was acquired by notification dated 26.12.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act followed by declaration made under Section 6 dated 27.04.2004 and in due process compensation was determined by the LA Collector, for 'viti' class of land @ Rs.64,000/- per kani and for 'bastu' class of land @ Rs.60,000/- per kani and it was paid with solatium and interest, etc., and the referring-claimant i.e. the respondent No.1 received the compensation under protest with a prayer to make reference to the LA Judge for determination of actual market price of the acquired land under Section 18 of the LA Act. The LA Collector accordingly made the reference and it was registered as Case No. Misc.(LA) 41 of 2009. 4. In course of trial of that reference the referring-claimant i.e. the land holder, respondent No.1 and the LA Collector submitted claim statement and counter statement and also adduced evidence. On behalf of referring-claimant one witness was examined and certified copy of two sale deeds and a judgment in Case No. Misc. (LA) 5 of 2006 were put and those were marked as Exbt-1 series. On behalf of the LA Collector one witness namely Sri Arabinda Deb, an Amin of the office of the LA Collector was examined and he also proved valuation chart of the DM'S Office and copies of the sale deeds, etc. and those were marked as Exbt-A series. 5. By impugned judgment dated 17.03.2012 learned LA Judge enhanced the compensation @Rs.2,00,000/- flatly for both 'bastu' & 'viti' classes of acquired land of the referring-claimant. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed 6. It is argued by learned CGC, Mr. and those were marked as Exbt-A series. 5. By impugned judgment dated 17.03.2012 learned LA Judge enhanced the compensation @Rs.2,00,000/- flatly for both 'bastu' & 'viti' classes of acquired land of the referring-claimant. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed 6. It is argued by learned CGC, Mr. Majumder that learned LA Judge did not rely on the sale instances proved by the referring-claimant but enhanced the compensation without any basis whimsically. He has referred to the observation of the learned LA Judge made in para-8 of the judgment and submitted that such enhancement of compensation without any rhyme or reason cannot stand and, therefore, the judgment & award according to learned CGC, Mr. Majumder is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. Debnath submitted that the acquired land is most potential land situated adjacent to Manu market in the tri-junction of Manu-Chailangta road and the acquired land could be used for commercial purpose and under such circumstances enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani cannot be said to be excessive. 8. Learned LA Judge discarded the sale instances proved by both side and arrived at a conclusion that the price of land is in the increase and, therefore, he has enhanced the compensation towards price of land @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 9. I am in full agreement with the submission of learned CGC, Mr. Majumder that the best method of determination of compensation is to take into consideration the sale instances of acquired land itself or some other comparable land in the vicinity at the date of notification under Section 4. If no such sale instance is produced, then, of course, the determination has to be made taking into consideration other factors such as produce of the land, its future potential, etc. 10. PW-1 in his evidence stated that Manu market is situated at Mouja Manu and the acquired land of the claimant is situated at the tri-junction of Manu-chailangta road and the market and business establishments are there in both side of the acquired land of the referring-claimant. That part of the evidence adduced by PW-1 has not been denied in cross-examination by the LA Collector or the requiring department. That part of the evidence adduced by PW-1 has not been denied in cross-examination by the LA Collector or the requiring department. While such evidence is there that the acquired land was most potential land situated near to the market place and business establishments, the land must be considered to be most potential land. Admittedly, the acquisition has been made for the construction of National Highway, which means the land is situated adjacent to the Highway and adjacent to the market. Under such circumstances though no sale instance proved on behalf of the referring-claimant, I do not like to interfere in the award passed by the learned LA Judge since the price fixed by the award cannot be said to be an abnormally high price. A landholder is entitled to compensation at the market rate as contemplated in Article 31A of the Constitution. The landholder lost her 'bastu' & 'viti classes of land situated by the roadside near the market. So while the compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani has been awarded, I find no justification at all to interfere in the judgment and award passed by learned LA Judge though reason assigned by learned LA Judge is not sufficient at all. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and hence dismissed. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.