JUDGMENT AND 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 27.06.2008 passed by learned L.A. Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Civil Misc. (LA) No. 12 of 2007. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate, Ms. A.S. Lodh for the respondents. 3. By Notification No. 9(6)-REV/SEQ/II/2006, dated 16.06.2006 issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act followed by the declaration of even number dated 27.07.2006 issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, Nal class of land measuring 0’64 acres belonged to Lalit Mohan Chakraborty, the predecessor of the present appellants, at Mouja-West Kanchanbari under Kanchanbari Tehashil Kachari of Kailashahar Sub-Division, was acquired for the purpose of construction of motor stand at Kanchanbari Growth Center. The respondent-L.A. Collector in due course determined compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,27,650/- per kani by the award dated 11.10.2006. The land holder received the compensation under protest with a request to make a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act by filing a written application dated 08.12.2006 and claimed compensation @ Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani. The L.A. Collector made reference accordingly, which was registered before the learned L.A. Judge as Civil Misc. (LA) No. 12 of 2007. 4. In the course of hearing of the reference, the referring claimant and the L.A. Collector submitted claim statement respectively and counter statement and thereafter the referring claimant examined himself and two other witnesses and relied on Sale Deed No. 1-1684 dated 17.06.1992, Sale Deed No. 1-490 dated 29.03.2000 and Sale Deed No. 1-240 dated 19.02.1999 and those were marked as Exbt.-1 series. 5. Respondent-L.A. Collector also examined one witness, namely, Sri Pradip Biswas, Amin of the Office of the L.A. Collector, and relied on the papers submitted by the L.A. Collector with the reference, as well as two sale instances, i.e., Sale Deed No. 1-729 dated 22.04.2006 and Sale Deed No. 1-839 dated 05.05.2006 and those were marked as Exbt.-A series. 6. The learned L.A. Judge by the impugned judgment enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,27,650/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani, but did not take into consideration the sale instances proved by the parties. 7. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed by the claimant-appellants. 8. Mr. 6. The learned L.A. Judge by the impugned judgment enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,27,650/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- per kani, but did not take into consideration the sale instances proved by the parties. 7. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed by the claimant-appellants. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned L.A. Judge discarded the sale instances proved by the referring claimant only on the ground that those were of very small pieces of land. The L.A. Judge would consider those sale instances after making certain deduction since those were of small pieces of land. The sale instances proved by the referring claimant were of the same land, part of which has been acquired by the L.A. Collector in the proceeding. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the L.A. Collector as well as the learned L.A. Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the acquired land is a compact land situated by the side of the main road near market and that the land has been acquired for motor stand and that is sufficient to prove the potentiality of the land for which adequate compensation ought to have been given to the referring claimant. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that all those sale instances proved by the referring claimant were of very small pieces of land and those were Dokan vity class of land. So, those sale instances were rightly discarded by the learned L.A. Judge. The sale instances were of 1992, 2000 and 1999 and so, were much before the date of acquisition. So, those sale instances cannot be the basis of determination of compensation. 10. There is no dispute about the quantum or classification of the acquired land. After going through the award made by the L.A. Collector I find that the L.A. Collector considered four sale instances and Sale Deed No. 1-1839, which has been proved as an item of Exbt.-A series, carries price @ Rs. 1,27,650/- per kani and that rate has been considered by the L.A. Collector and awarded as compensation for the acquired land. According to the L.A. Collector that land was situated about 530 meters away from the acquired land and it was of Nal class measuring 0’47 acres. 11. 1,27,650/- per kani and that rate has been considered by the L.A. Collector and awarded as compensation for the acquired land. According to the L.A. Collector that land was situated about 530 meters away from the acquired land and it was of Nal class measuring 0’47 acres. 11. The referring claimant, as already stated hereinbefore, proved three sale instances and out of them Sale Deed No. 1-1684 dated 17.02.1992 and Sale Deed No. 1-490 dated 29.03.2000 were executed by the referring claimant himself to one Rantu Ranjan Dey and Animesh Paul respectively and those Sale Deeds carry the price of the land @ Rs. 29,00,000/- per kani. It is not disputed that those two sale deeds relate to the same land, part of which has been acquired in connection with the present land acquisition proceeding. It is also an admitted position that those two sale instances were of very small pieces of Dokan vity class of land, that is situated by the side of the main road. The other Sale Deed No. 1-240 dated 19.02.1999 was of adjacent land sold by one Sunil Kumar Roy to Kripesh Paul and that also carries price @ Rs. 29,00,000/- per kani. Rantu Ranjan Dey and Kripesh Paul have been examined by the referring claimant as witnesses. 12. It is the constitutional mandate that for compulsory acquisition of land, compensation at the rate, which shall not be less than market value, shall be paid to the land holder. The two sale instances proved by the referring claimant of the same land but were of 1992 and 2000 and the acquisition had been made in the year 2006. The price of the land is on the increase, but to what percentage the increase has happened no evidence has been adduced. The sale instances proved by the L.A. Collector carry much less price than that of the sale instances proved by the referring claimant. It is a settled law that the sale instance of comparable land which carries the highest price shall be considered for payment of compensation. 13. It is a fact that the referring claimant made application to the L.A. Collector for making reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and in that written application the referring claimant claimed that the market price of the land was Rs. 13. It is a fact that the referring claimant made application to the L.A. Collector for making reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and in that written application the referring claimant claimed that the market price of the land was Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani, but in his claim statement before the learned L.A. Judge the referring claimant stated that the price was Rs. 50,00,000/- per kani. No evidence adduced by the referring claimant as to what was the percentage of increase or decrease between the time he made the petition for reference and the time when the claim statement was filed. We also find no positive evidence as to what was the increase of the price level from the date the sale instances of Exbt.-1 series till the date of acquisition. It is an admitted position that the sale instances proved by the referring claimant was of very small pieces of land and it was Dokan vity class of land as admitted by the referring claimant himself in his cross-examination. The acquired land is also situated by the side of the road and acquired for the purpose of motor stand, which means it is also a potential land situated in the market area of Kanchanbari and though it was a Nal class of land at the time of acquisition, but it ought to be converted into commercial land after development. Obviously, the front part of the land adjacent to the road would carry much price than that of the back side of the land. A total area of 0’64 acres in compact area was acquired. So, the entire land would not carry the same price like Dokan vity class of land. Had the entire land was developed to make it fit for the use as a commercial land, lot of efforts and expenditure ought to have been made by the referring claimant. 14. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Ramendra Kumar Bhattacharjee and Others vs. Land Acquisition Collector, North Tripura and Another, (2013) 2 TLR 964 (Judgment authored by me). In that reported case relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, this Court determined compensation after making a deduction of 75% from the price of a smaller piece of land, which was located in the junction of two roads. 15. In that reported case relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, this Court determined compensation after making a deduction of 75% from the price of a smaller piece of land, which was located in the junction of two roads. 15. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the referring claimant while made application before the L.A. Collector for reference under Section 18 clearly mentioned that the acquired land valued Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani, but before the learned L.A. Judge claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- per kani. That petition seeking reference is on record. So, the rate of the acquired land cannot be more than Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani. 16. No doubt, in the record, I find that the referring claimant mentioned the value @ Rs. 16,00,000/- per kani of the acquired land, but that petition has not been proved and also not referred to the referring claimant at the time of his cross-examination. So, that application seeking reference cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the reference. 17. It is a settled law that a reference should be decided on the basis of the evidence/ materials placed before the Court and not on the basis of the materials considered by the L.A. Collector. So, we cannot take into consideration the application filed by the referring claimant seeking reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act submitted before the L.A. Collector. 18. The sale instances proved by the referring claimant shows the price of land @ Rs. 29,00,000/- per kani. As already stated herein before those sale instances were of Dokan vity class of land. The acquired land is Nal class of land and a compact area of land both in the road side as well as in the back side of the plot of land. So, considering all these aspects, I think there must be 75% deduction from the price obtained by the sale instances proved by the referring claimant. If we deduct 75% from the price as obtained in the sale instances of the referring claimant, the rate comes to Rs. 7,25,000/- per kani. The referring claimant, i.e., appellants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 7,25,000/- per kani. The rate fixed by the learned L.A. Judge was inadequate and not consistent with the market price prevailing at that time and so, the Judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge is interfered. 7,25,000/- per kani. The referring claimant, i.e., appellants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 7,25,000/- per kani. The rate fixed by the learned L.A. Judge was inadequate and not consistent with the market price prevailing at that time and so, the Judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge is interfered. The respondents are directed to pay compensation @ Rs. 7,25,000/- per kani along with solatium and interest over the increased amount and solatium as prescribed by the law. 19. The appeal accordingly is allowed and disposed of. 20. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.