JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Despite due notice none appears for the respondent No.1. 2. By means of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the L.A. Act the land loser-appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 27.07.2015 delivered in L.A.(Ref) 260 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia. 3. The facts which are not in dispute in this appeal are that in observance of the due process, the land measuring 0.008 acre, of bastu class, comprised in plot No.1196/8764P under Mouja Belonia was acquired for purpose of improvement of the road from Ratanmani Setu to Revenue Dak Banglow, Belonia Sub-division. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award by the notification dated 09.06.2010 allowing a compensation of Rs.34,000/- for land @ Rs.17,00,000/- per kani along with Rs.1,040/- for damage of trees and crops standing on the acquired land and another sum of Rs.1,23,865/- for removal of huts. The interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act was also awarded. 4. By the impugned judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge on reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the instance of the present appellants has enhanced the compensation and directed that the land value @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani, 30% solatium over the said land value under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act, 12% of the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act shall be paid to the land-losers. That apart, the land Acquisition Judge has enhanced the amount for damage for tree and crops to Rs.2000/- from Rs.1040/- and the cost of removal of huts etc was enhanced to Rs.2,40,000/- from Rs.1,23,865/- as awarded by the L.A. Collector. 5. In this appeal, the land-loser did not raise any objection on damages as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, their objection hinges on the land value. According to Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants the sale instances as admitted in the evidence by the land-losers were not considered properly and consideration as made entirely mechanical. 5. In this appeal, the land-loser did not raise any objection on damages as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, their objection hinges on the land value. According to Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants the sale instances as admitted in the evidence by the land-losers were not considered properly and consideration as made entirely mechanical. As such it is urged that those sale instances are required to be considered by this court and the land value be enhanced to make the award just and reasonable. Mr. Saha, learned counsel having referred to the sale instances [Exbt.1 series] has further submitted that by the sale deed No.1-198 dated 01.02.2008, the appellants as established that sale value of the respective land. From the sale deed, it is Rs.50,13,333/- whereas the sale value vide sale deed No.1-801 dated 30.05.2008 is Rs.83,883,49/-. The sale deed dated 1-802 dated 13.07.2007 has reflected the sale value @ Rs.64,382,70/-. It is further asserted by Mr. Saha, learned counsel that by the sale deed No.1-1208 dated 20.06.1996, the transfer had taken place on consideration of Rs.56,470,58/- whereas by the sale deed No.1-95 dated 04.01.2007, the land value as available therein is Rs.33,499,19/-. It is apparent that the land under reference was acquired under Section 17 of the L.A. Act by the notification dated 15.04.2010 and the sale instances are of the period before the land was acquired. Thus, Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the land is located adjacent to the main road namely Belonia-Bankar road, which situated outside Belonia town, whereas the acquired land is in the Belonia main town. 6. From the other side, Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the L.A. Judge has assigned adequate reasons why he has not considered the 5(five) sale instances as placed on evidence by the appellants. To relate such reasons, he has referred to the part of the para-7 of the judgment, where it has been observed by the Land Acquisition Judge as under: “In AIR 2003 SC 1987 , our Hon’ble Apex Court viewed that two of the conditions laid down for comparable sale instance is that the land of the sale instance it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired. Secondly, both the land should possess similar advantages. Secondly, both the land should possess similar advantages. In the instant case the acquired lands and the land of sale instances are neither the same classification of land nor adjacent even the location advantages in respect of the lands of sale deeds referred are not similar to the acquired lands. The lands of sale deeds are relating to commercial land and situated by the side of Belonia-Bankar Main Road. No such documents produced by the claimants to prove that their acquired land is situated adjacent to the land of the sale deeds and similar in character. Moreover, in land acquisition case value of small piece of land cannot be basis for determination of value of the large tract of land.” 7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has urged this court that no interference is at all called for. So far the general principles, relating to comparison with the sale instances are concerned, there cannot be any different opinion, but the mechanical application of the principles sometimes becomes counterproductive to the interest of justice. In this case what has been observed by the Land Acquisition Judge, suffers from non appreciation to the attendant circumstances as the land acquired from the appellant is very small. However, there is no question of making a comparison between a small piece of land and a large tract of land as observed by the land Acquisition Judge. 8. Be that as it may, even one of the appellants appearing as PW-1 in the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Judge has admitted that the land as attracted by the sale instances are situated at Belonia-Bankar road which is far away from the acquired land. Thus, these instances cannot be compared. Simply for being within the main town area, it does not imply that those plots of land have a commercial value. But from the cross-examination of PW-1, what this court had noticed is that the acquired land is just opposite to Belonia town hall and besides the main road. From the said notification of the acquisition, it can be gathered that the road has been acquired for improvement of the road from the point of Ratanmani Setu to Dak Bunglow, Belonia. This land is situated in a very important locality and having situated just opposite to the town hall, this court can safely infer that it has a commercial potential. This land is situated in a very important locality and having situated just opposite to the town hall, this court can safely infer that it has a commercial potential. That aspect of the matter was not considered by the Land Acquisition Judge. From the notification for purpose of determining the value for registration, it appears from the assessment note that the Sub-divisional Magistrate, South Tripura Belonia has notified a chart of the rates fixed for registration of the sale-deeds. It appears that the rate for commercial land, non-residential has been determined @ Rs.50,00,000/- In the considered opinion, of this court, the appellants are entitled to the said rate for their acquired land. Hence, having interfered with the impugned judgment and award so far as it is related to the determination of land value is concerned. The land value therefore shall be at the rate of Rs.50,00,000/- per kani and accordingly, the award is modified. However, the components of compensation shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. Draw the award/decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.