JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. All the nine Land Acquisition Appeals, arising out of acquisition of land under same notification and same mouja and same purpose were filed by the requiring department i.e. the Union of India against the judgment and award passed by learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in case Nos. Misc. (LA) No. 04 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 05 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 06 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 07 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 08 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 09 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 10 of 2007, Misc. (LA) No. 11 of 2007 and Misc. (LA) No. 12 of 2007. By a common judgment all those reference cases were disposed of and so on the prayer of learned counsel of the parties all the appeals were heard together and this common judgment is passed in respect of all the appeals. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. Bidyut Majumder and Mr. Biswanath Majumder for the appellants and learned counsel, Ms. S. Deb(Gupta) and Mr. D.C. Saha for the respondents. 3. For construction of parking lay-by, by the side of Agartala-Subroom Road at Mouja Badharghat under Badharghat Tehsil of Bishalgarh Sub-Division, land measuring 1.383 acres of different class was acquired by Notification No. 9(8)-REV/ACQ/XIV/2003 dated 23.09.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, L.A. Act) followed by declaration of even number dated 03.12.2003. L.A. Collector determined compensation for bastu(tilla), dokan(tilla) and karkhana(tilla) class of land at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per kani and for viti(tilla) and tilla class of land at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per kani and path class at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per kani. The compensation was received by the landholders under protest with a request to make reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly the L.A. Collector made the references. 4. In course of hearing of the reference, both side submitted claim statement and counter statement and adduced oral and documentary evidence. Considering the evidence adduced, the learned L.A. Judge enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00,000/- per kani for bastu(tilla) and dokan(tilla) class of land and Rs. 21,00,000/- for viti(tilla) and tilla class of land. 5. The requiring department felt aggrieved and filed the present L.A. appeals. 6. It is argued by learned CGC, Mr. Considering the evidence adduced, the learned L.A. Judge enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00,000/- per kani for bastu(tilla) and dokan(tilla) class of land and Rs. 21,00,000/- for viti(tilla) and tilla class of land. 5. The requiring department felt aggrieved and filed the present L.A. appeals. 6. It is argued by learned CGC, Mr. Majumder that the L.A. Judge while considering the sale instances did not apply the rate contained in particular sale instance but suddenly came to the conclusion fixing the valuation at the rate of Rs. 23,00,000/- and Rs. 21,00,000/- per kani respectively while assigned no reason for coming to the conclusion at such rates. He has also submitted that bastu(tilla) and dukan(tilla) class of land while was given at the rate of Rs. 23,00,000/- per kani, viti(tilla) and tilla class of land cannot be valued at the rate of Rs. 21,00,000/- per kani. 7. On the other hand learned counsel, Ms. Deb (Gupta) and Mr. Saha submitted that the acquired land is situated by the side of the main road within Municipal area of Agartala near the market and is most potential land and therefore ought to have been given much higher rate than that what has been awarded by the L.A. Judge. They prayed for maintaining the award. 8. There is no dispute regarding quantum and classification of the acquired land. There is also no dispute that the acquired land is situated by the side of Agartala-Subroom main road and the land was acquired for parking lay-by attached to the Agartala-Subroom main road. The road running through that area is a tilla/raised class of land. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder, though insisted that tilla class of land and viti class of land cannot be equated, but I find no cogent evidence on record to distinguish the tilla and viti class of land. The area of land is a raised/tilla class of land which is used as viti, dokan viti, bastu, etc. classes of land. It is a compact area of 1.383 acres of land acquired for parking lay-by running parallel to the Agartala-Subroom road. So, the entire area of land acquired is a most potential land located in Agartala Municipal area (as extended) and the land is most valuable land. 9. classes of land. It is a compact area of 1.383 acres of land acquired for parking lay-by running parallel to the Agartala-Subroom road. So, the entire area of land acquired is a most potential land located in Agartala Municipal area (as extended) and the land is most valuable land. 9. The referring claimants examined themselves as witnesses and relied on four sale instances which were marked as Exbt.1 series i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-68 dated 03.01.2001, Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002, Sale Deed No. 1-1727 dated 10.02.2005 and Sale Deed No. 1-9477 dated 28.08.2006. The referring claimants also produced two maps of the locality. The L.A. Collector examined one witness and proved two sale instances i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-6282 dated 21.07.2003 and Sale Deed No. 1-6489 dated 18.07.2001 and those were marked as Exbt.A series. The requiring department also examined one witness but did not adduce any documentary evidence. 10. The sale deeds produced by the L.A. Collector carries a price at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per kani. Out of the four sale instances relied by the referring claimants, Sale Deed No. 1-1727 dated 10.02.2005 and Sale Deed No. 9477 dated 28.08.2006, were sale transactions long after the date of acquisition and so the learned L.A. Judge rightly discarded those two sale instances. Sale Deed No. 1-68 dated 03.01.2001 was for a viti class of land measuring two krantas 15 dhurs i.e. a very small piece of land and that carries a price of Rs. 87,00,000/- per kani. Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002 is for an area of seven gandas two karas of land and that carries a price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani and that was transacted just immediately before the date of notification made under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Referring claimants produced a khatian of the land transacted under Sale Deed dated 07.02.2002 and it shows the new plot number which is mentioned in the sale deed and the map shows that it is very near to the acquired land and of same class of land. The plot number mentioned in Sale Deed dated 03.01.2001 does not find place in the map produced by the referring claimants and in the oral evidence also the referring claimants did not clarify as to the location of the land under transaction of that deed. The plot number mentioned in Sale Deed dated 03.01.2001 does not find place in the map produced by the referring claimants and in the oral evidence also the referring claimants did not clarify as to the location of the land under transaction of that deed. So, in my considered opinion the price obtained by Sale Deed No. 1-68 dated 03.01.2001 cannot be considered for decision of the cases as a sale deed of comparable land though the transaction is of the land of same Mouja. 11. It is a settled law that the highest price borne in a sale transaction of comparable land shall be fixed for payment of compensation. It is a constitutional mandate that for compulsory acquisition of land, compensation should be paid not less than the market price. Ordinarily, a sale transaction is held after vigorous bargain between the seller and purchaser. A sale price means a price which a willing purchaser is ready to give to a willing seller. A sale is generally held after taking into consideration the location, the potential and the future and present prospect of the land. So, a sale instance is always a best evidence to determine the compensation for acquisition of land. It is, however a settled position that some sorts of guesswork, some sorts of assumption and presumption and some sorts of hypothetical assessment always take place while ascertaining the compensation in a given case of acquisition. 12. I agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Majumder that burden absolutely lies on the referring claimants to prove that the price fixed by the L.A. Collector was not the proper market price of the acquired land. The referring claimants produced four deeds and out of these, two deeds were before the date of notification and two deeds were about two years after the date of notification. So, the sale instances i.e. the deeds which were of 2001 and 2002 may be fairly taken to consideration for determination of market price of the acquired land. The deed of 2001 carries a price of Rs. 87,00,000/- per kani and the deed of 2002 carries a price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani of viti class of land. So, the sale instances i.e. the deeds which were of 2001 and 2002 may be fairly taken to consideration for determination of market price of the acquired land. The deed of 2001 carries a price of Rs. 87,00,000/- per kani and the deed of 2002 carries a price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani of viti class of land. I am of considered opinion that there is no basic difference between viti(tilla) class of land, viti(bastu) class of land and viti class of land since the acquisition is made by the side of the main road for a diversion road, adjacent to the road and the entire area is similar class of land. The witness of the appellants i.e. the requiring department, DW1 in his examination-in-chief itself clearly stated that the land is situated at Hapania market complex and classified as viti/tilla. In his cross-examination also he made the clear statement that the acquired land is situated adjacent to Agartala- Subroom road and that it is situated nearby Hapania market road. So, it is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated adjacent to Agartala-Subroom main road and the land has been acquired for parking lay-by adjacent to the road and it is very near to the market and it is a densely populated locality of Agartala Municipal area at mouja Badharghat. The land is therefore very potential and very valuable land and for acquisition of such land adequate compensation so far the market rate is concerned should be paid to the referring claimants. 13. The learned L.A. Judge while considered two sale instances suddenly came to the conclusion of giving the price at the rate of Rs. 23,00,000/- and Rs. 21,00,000/- per kani as stated hereinbefore. He practically did not give any reason for coming to that conclusion. I find no reason to discard the price obtained in Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002 which carries a price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani. Even in the evidence of Sri Debendra Debbarma i.e. the witness of L.A. Collector, examined before the L.A. Judge, I find that he referred seven sale instances and one of it i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002 carries a value of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,30,065/- per kani. 20,00,000/- per kani. Even in the evidence of Sri Debendra Debbarma i.e. the witness of L.A. Collector, examined before the L.A. Judge, I find that he referred seven sale instances and one of it i.e. Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002 carries a value of the land at the rate of Rs. 18,30,065/- per kani. That price was not given by the L.A. Collector saying that the deed was carrying abnormal and unreasonable price but why it was considered as abnormal and unreasonable price that has not been clarified in the evidence of witness, Debendra Debbarma who was examined on behalf of L.A. Collector. As already stated hereinbefore, highest price of comparable land shall be paid to the landholders for compulsory acquisition of land. Be that as it may, since L.A. Collector referred the matter, decision has to be taken by the L.A. Judge and L.A. Judge decided the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 23,00,000/- per kani for bastu(tilla) and dukan(tilla) class of land and Rs. 21,00,000/- per kani to viti(tilla) and tilla class of land. It is a little bit higher than the rate which was proved by Sale Deed No. 1-1169 dated 07.02.2002. The price of land is increasing arithmetically. The sale deed was of February, 2002 and the acquisition notification was made in September, 2003. So, by that time there might be some sorts of increase in the price though there is no definite evidence but for that little bit of higher price, I do not want to interfere in the award made by the L.A. Judge. In my considered opinion the award made by the L.A. Judge is reasonable and does not deserve interference. The appeals therefore stand dismissed but the parties to bear their own costs. 14. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.