JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against judgment and award dated 19.09.2011 passed by learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura (Court No. 3), Agartala, in case No. Misc. (L.A.) 19 of 2009. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. A. Roy Barman for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the landholder, i.e. respondent No.1 even after service of notice. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty is present on behalf of respondent No.2 but has fairly submitted that he has nothing to submit since nothing has been produced by the respondent for arguing the matter. 3. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Roy Barman that by the impugned common judgment dated 19.09.2011, the learned L.A. Judge disposed of eleven reference cases. Some appeals were filed challenging the common judgment in particular reference cases and this Court has already disposed some of the appeals. He has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed in L.A. App. No.28 of 2013 and L.A. App. No.29 of 2013, which relate to case No. Misc.(L.A.) 3 of 2009 and Misc.(L.A.) 14 of 2009 which were also disposed of by the common judgment dated 19.09.2011 by the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.3). It is also submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Roy Barman that the appeals were allowed and judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge in respect of those reference cases were set aside. 4. For the construction of bye-pass road at Bishalgarh, land measuring 9.871 acres, vide Notification No.9(18)-Rev/ACQ/XIV/2004, dated 26.04.2004, under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, followed by declaration of even No. dated 25.05.2004, belonged to the different landholders was acquired at Mouja Anandanagar, Sheet No.1/P, under Bishalgarh Sub Division and in the process, land measuring 0.14 acres classified as bastu (tilla) belonged to the respondent No.1, Abhimunya Das was also acquired and in due process, L.A. Collector determined compensation of different classes of land in the following rate:- Classification of land Assessed rate per kani Bastu, Bastu (Tilla) Rs.3,00,000/- Bagan (Tilla)/Chara Tilla Rs.2,50,000/- Nal Rs.2,00,000/- Viti (Nal), Chara (Nal)/Lunga Rs.1,50,000/- Tilla Rs.75,000/- Indara, Road, Layekpatit (Tilla), Path Rs.20,000/- 5. Both side contested the case before the learned L.A. Judge by submitting claim statement and counter statement and as it appears, same set of evidence was adduced in all the cases tried together by the learned L.A. Judge analogously and disposed by common judgment. 6. The referring claimant examined himself as PW1 and also relied on a sale instance bearing sale deed No.977 dated 02.02.2002 which is marked as Exbt.1. 7. On behalf of L.A. Collector one witness was examined and 4 (four) sale instances were proved which were marked as Exbt. A series as follows:- i. Sale Deed No.1-2805 dated 11.4.2003, ii. Sale Deed No.1-2806 dated 11.4.2003, iii. Sale Deed No.1-9361 dated 30.10.2002 and iv. Sale Deed No.1-9379 dated 30.10.2002. 8. Learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation of all classes of land as follows:- Sl. No. Class of land. Assessed rate per kani by the L.A. Collector. Compensation given by the Court (per kani) 1 Bastu, Bastu (Tilla) Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.4,26,000/- 2 Bagan (Tilla)/Chara Tilla Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.3,76,000/- 3 Nal Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,26,000/- 4 Viti (Nal), Chara (Nal)/Lunga Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.2,76,000/- 5 Tilla Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,38,000/- 6 Indara, Road, Layekpatit (Tilla), Path Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/- 9. Determination of market price of the acquired land is no doubt a difficult task. It is a settled law that the market price for compulsory acquisition of land may be determined taking into account comparable sale instances. A sale transaction is held after vigorous bargain between a seller and a purchaser and it reflects the actual market price at the time of transaction. So, a sale instance held genuinely at the date of acquisition of the acquired land or of comparable land in the locality, may be taken as a reasonable instance for determining compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. If there are several sale instances of comparable land of the same locality or vicinity of the acquired land then the sale instance carrying highest price should be taken into consideration for determining the market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. It is a constitutional right of the land losers to get compensation at market price and market price means the market price of comparable land which is available at the date of acquisition. While determining such compensation the increase or decrease in the price comparable to the exemplar deed also is to be taken into consideration. It is a constitutional right of the land losers to get compensation at market price and market price means the market price of comparable land which is available at the date of acquisition. While determining such compensation the increase or decrease in the price comparable to the exemplar deed also is to be taken into consideration. The future potential of the land shall also to be taken into consideration. 10. It is a settled law that a reference under Section 18 shall be decided on the basis of the evidence and materials placed before the Court. Burden definitely lies on the referring claimants to prove that they were entitled to a higher price than what was determined by the L.A. Collector. In this appeal, as I find, the referring claimant examined himself and he stated that the acquired land was most potential land and it was fit for further commercial and industrial residential purpose and that many Government establishments were situated in the locality. The referring claimants relied on Exbt.1 i.e. the Sale-deed No.977, dated 02.02.2002. 11. The Sale-deed appears to be of same mouja and it was for two gandas of ‘viti’ class of land. No map of the locality produced to show that the land though is of same mouja but is of a comparable land to that of the acquired land. Even the referring claimant in his evidence did not utter a single word that the land of Sale-deed bearing No.977, dated 02.02.2002 i.e. Exbt.1 is of a comparable land and that the price obtained by that exemplar deed should be the price of the acquired land. It is quite shocking that the learned L.A. Judge while arrived at a finding that the sale instance submitted by the referring claimants cannot be accepted as a Sale-instance of comparable land, but immediately in the next line he has taken it into consideration and again made an average with the price obtained in the sale instances proved by the L.A. Collector. Though he has arrived at an average but he has increased the price without any basis. I cannot comprehend on the basis of what evidence the learned L.A. Judge has increased the price of the acquired land. The relevant portion of the finding of the learned L.A. Judge as made in para 8 of the judgment is reproduced here. Though he has arrived at an average but he has increased the price without any basis. I cannot comprehend on the basis of what evidence the learned L.A. Judge has increased the price of the acquired land. The relevant portion of the finding of the learned L.A. Judge as made in para 8 of the judgment is reproduced here. “On examination of the sale transaction referred by the L.A. Collector it appears that tilla class of land was sold @ Rs.53,333/- per kani and there is a consistent rate in between all the sale transactions. The land of all those sale transactions are very close to the acquired land and so the sale deeds are considered as comparable sale deeds in this case. On the other hand, only one sale transaction referred by the referring claimants reveal that only two gandas of Viti (Tilla) class of land was sold @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. The per kani rate of this sale transaction appears to be abnormally high and not consistent with the similar class of land as referred by the L.A. Collector. Moreover, distance of the sale transaction referred by the referring claimant with the acquired land is not proved as no map is filed. However, for ends of justice sale transaction of referring claimants is also considered as comparable sale deed. The average rate of all those sale transactions of both sides for ‘Tilla’ class of land on calculation comes to Rs.1,38,000/- and accordingly I award compensation for the various class of land on the following rate:- Sl. No. Class of land. Assessed rate per kani by the L.A. Collector. Compensation given by the Court (per kani) 1 Bastu, Bastu (Tilla) Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.4,26,000/- 2 Bagan (Tilla)/Chara Tilla Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.3,76,000/- 3 Nal Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.3,26,000/- 4 Viti (Nal), Chara (Nal)/Lunga Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.2,76,000/- 5 Tilla Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,38,000/- 6 Indara, Road, Layekpatit (Tilla), Path Rs.20,000/- Rs.40,000/-” 12. A bare reading of the above finding of the learned L.A. Judge makes it abundantly clear that the learned L.A. Judge did not at all apply his mind to the evidence and materials placed on record and whimsically arrived at a finding increasing the price of the acquired land. No doubt, as already stated hereinbefore, a land loser must be given adequate and proper compensation as per the market rate prevailing at the date of acquisition. No doubt, as already stated hereinbefore, a land loser must be given adequate and proper compensation as per the market rate prevailing at the date of acquisition. But that determination must be on the basis of some evidence brought on record. Some sorts of assumption and presumption and some sorts of hypothesis always takes place while determining compensation, but, it must be on the basis of some evidence on record. There cannot be even a hypothesis or assumption and presumption in the air. The referring claimants though produced a sale instance showing the price @Rs.5,00,000/- per kani but adduced neither any documentary nor any oral evidence to show that the exemplar deed, they relied, was of a comparable land. In the absence of any such documentary or oral evidence, the Court cannot depend on such a sale instance. The learned L.A. Judge neither relied on that exemplar deed nor refused the exemplar deed. He made an average of the price in the exemplar deeds produced by the referring claimant as well as the L.A. Collector and thereafter he has fixed a price of his own which has no connection with the evidence and materials on record. 13. As already stated hereinbefore, the burden lies on the referring claimant to prove the case and since in this case I find no cogent evidence to show that the referring claimants were entitled to a higher price than what was determined by the L.A. Collector, I am of considered opinion that the appeal should be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge should be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 15. The judgment and award dated 19.09.2011, passed by the learned L.A. judge (Court No.3), West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (LA) 19 of 2009 is set aside. 16. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.