JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. All the three Land Acquisition appeals were taken up together for hearing and disposal on the submission of learned counsel of both side since the appeals preferred against a common judgment dated 17.12.2009 passed by learned L.A. Judge, Belonia in case Nos. L.A. (Ref.) No. 28 of 2009, L.A. (Ref.) No. 30 of 2009 and L.A. (Ref.) No. 31 of 2009. 2. Heard learned State counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. S.S. Debnath for the claimant-respondents in all the appeals. 3. For the construction of Muhuri Irrigation Project at mouja Jolaibari, total land measuring 7.40 acres of different class belonged to the different landholders was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act(for short, L.A. Act) vide Notification No. F.9(26)-Rev/Acq./VII/2005 dated 11.11.2005, followed by declaration of even number dated 02.01.2006, issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act and in the process land measuring 0.16 acres of nal class, belonged to claimant-respondent, Monoranjan Das of L.A. App. No. 13 of 2010, land measuring 0.04 acres of nal class belonged to claimant-respondent, Kanu Chandra Das of L.A. Appeal No. 14 of 2010 and land measuring 0.41 acres of nal, dova and pukur class, belonged to claimant-respondent, Bhuban Chandra Das of L.A. App. No. 15 of 2010, were acquired and in the process the L.A. Collector determined compensation for nal class of land at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per kani and pukur and dova class of land at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per kani. 4. The referring claimants received compensation under protest with a request to refer the cases to the court of L.A. Judge for determination of actual market price at the date of acquisition and accordingly the reference was made before the L.A. Judge, Belonia, South Tripura. 5. Both side submitted claim statement and counter statement. In course of trial the referring claimants i.e. the landholders examined themselves as PW1 and they relied on three sale instances i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-1445 dated 12.07.2002, Sale Deed No. 1-1446 dated 12.07.2002 and Sale Deed No. 1-457 dated 18.03.1993. On behalf of the L.A. Collector one witness has been examined and no documentary evidence adduced. 6. In course of trial the referring claimants i.e. the landholders examined themselves as PW1 and they relied on three sale instances i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-1445 dated 12.07.2002, Sale Deed No. 1-1446 dated 12.07.2002 and Sale Deed No. 1-457 dated 18.03.1993. On behalf of the L.A. Collector one witness has been examined and no documentary evidence adduced. 6. The learned L.A. Judge considering the evidence and materials on record enhanced the compensation towards price of nal class of land at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani and pukur/dova class of land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per kani. Learned L.A. Judge did not consider the prices obtained in the sale instances assigning reasons. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Nath that the learned L.A. Judge discarded the sale instances relied by the referring claimants assigning good reason but without any evidence increased the compensation towards price of land only saying that the price of land is increasing day by day. While there is no sale instance to show that the price fixed by the L.A. Collector was inadequate, learned L.A. Judge was not supposed to increase the compensation towards price of land and would maintain the price fixed by the L.A. Collector. It is, therefore submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Nath that the judgment and award cannot stand in the eye of law and hence liable to be interfered. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Debnath appearing for the respondent-landholders has submitted that the learned L.A. Judge did not rely upon the sale instances proved by the referring claimants but has found that the price fixed by the L.A. Collector was also imaginary since L.A. Collector did not consider any sale instance and simply relying on the valuation chart maintained in the office of SDM, L.A. Collector fixed the compensation which was not acceptable. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for maintaining the award passed by the learned L.A. Judge. 9. For compulsory acquisition of land a landholder is entitled to get adequate compensation towards price of land as per the prevailing market price. It is a right of the landholder. It is, therefore the duty of the L.A. Collector to determine the market price at the date of acquisition i.e. on the date of issuing the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. It is a right of the landholder. It is, therefore the duty of the L.A. Collector to determine the market price at the date of acquisition i.e. on the date of issuing the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The best method of determining compensation is the consideration of sale instances of the acquired land or of any other comparable land in the locality. Normally, a sale transaction is held after vigorous bargaining between the seller and purchaser and such a sale instance reflects the actual market price in respect of the land. If such a sale instance is produced and proved, it is no doubt a document to be considered for fixing the price. 10. While a reference is made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, burden lies on the referring claimants to prove that the price fixed by the L.A. Collector was inadequate. The referring claimants proved three sale instances but no evidence adduced to show that those sale instances were of comparable land. As I find, learned L.A. Judge rightly discarded those three sale instances. He has however enhanced the compensation to a little extent taking into account that the price of the land in the locality is on the increase. There is nothing in the record that those acquired lands were located in commercial area or in the roadside. Those were simple nal, pukur and dova class of land and so it cannot be said that those were most potential land, but still the L.A. Judge has enhanced it to a little extent. The landholders losing their land and while determining compensation even by the L.A. Judge some sorts of assumption and presumption and some hypothesis while appreciating the evidence always takes place and while the L.A. Judge taking into account the increasing trend of price rise enhanced the compensation from Rs. 65,000/- per kani to Rs. 1,00,000/- per kani for nul class of land and Rs. 40,000/- per kani to Rs. 75,000/- per kani for pukur/dova class of land, I find no justification to interfere in the judgment and award passed by the L.A. Judge. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the L.A. Judge in case Nos. L.A. (Ref.) No. 28 of 2009, L.A. (Ref.) No. 30 of 2009 and L.A. (Ref.) No. 31 of 2009 is maintained. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. 11. Parties to bear their own costs. 12. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the L.A. Judge in case Nos. L.A. (Ref.) No. 28 of 2009, L.A. (Ref.) No. 30 of 2009 and L.A. (Ref.) No. 31 of 2009 is maintained. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. 11. Parties to bear their own costs. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.