JUDGMENT & ORDER : Both the appeal and cross objection since directed against the same judgment and award dated 28.05.2013 passed by learned L.A. Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. Misc.(LA) 150 of 2010, those were heard together and this common judgment is passed in respect of both the cases. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. P. Chakraborty for the respondents in the appeal and vice versa in the cross objection. 3. Land measuring 0.1150 acres of Mouja-Agartala, Sheet No.8(3)/p was acquired for the purpose of easy movement of traffic located at Colonel Chowmuhani, Agartala city. The respondents of the appeal, who are the cross objectors, were the owners of the land with their house thereon. The L.A. Collector in due process vide his assessment order dated 27.01.2010 determined compensation @ Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani (local measurement). The claimants received compensation under protest and hence, L.A. Collector made the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the learned L.A. Judge, Agartala, West Tripura and accordingly, Case No. Misc.(LA) 150 of 2010 was registered in the Court of learned L.A. Judge, Court No.4, Agartala, West Tripura and the referring claimants, i.e., respondents of the present appeal, who are the cross objectors (hereinafter mentioned as ‘referring claimants’), submitted their claim statement as well as the appellants herein, who are the respondents in the cross objection(hereinafter mentioned as ‘respondent-appellants’), also submitted their written objection against the claim of the referring claimants. 4. The referring claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.5,00,00,000/- per kani. 5. There is no dispute about the classification and quantum of land. The referring claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.5,00,00,000/- per kani and the L.A. Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Situated thus, both side adduced evidence before the learned L.A. Judge. 6. It is a settled position of law that a reference made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act should be decided by the L.A. Judge like a civil suit based on the evidence adduced before the Court, irrespective of the decision of the L.A. Collector in respect of the quantum of compensation. 6. It is a settled position of law that a reference made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act should be decided by the L.A. Judge like a civil suit based on the evidence adduced before the Court, irrespective of the decision of the L.A. Collector in respect of the quantum of compensation. It is an admitted position that in course of trial on behalf of the referring claimants one Asish Kumar Modak was examined as PW1 and the referring claimants relied on the following documents, which were marked as Exbt.-1 series: “Exbt.-1(series) - Certified copy of the sale deed No. 1-725 dated 19.01.2006 - Certified copy of the sale deed No. 1-3100 dated 02.01.2011 - Revised land valuation charts with forwarding letter - Photocopies (Certified copies) of photographs of the location - General Power of Attorney - Map of Mouja – Agartala Sheet No.8(3)(portion).” 7. On behalf of the respondent-appellants, one witness, namely, Debananda Debbarma, a senior surveyor of the Office of the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura was examined as DW1 and they have relied on the following documents, which were marked as Exbt.-A series: “Exbt.-A(series) - Notification dated 6th November, 2009 - Declaration dated 29th December, 2009 - Order of L.A. Collector dated 27.01.10 in L.A. Case No.13/SDR/09 - Assessment Note - Possession Certificate - Appointments of the amount of compensation - Sale deed No.1-1290 dated 08.12.2006 - Deed of Amicable Partition No.1-3496 dated 18.05.2007.” 8. It is an admitted position that the acquired land is situated in the prime location of the Agartala city, located at Colonel Chowmuhani and on four sides of the acquired land there was public road. The L.A. Collector in his assessment note as well as DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that the land is situated in a most valuable position of Agartala city. 9. The referring claimants relied on two sale instances vide Sale Deed No.1-725 dated 19.01.2006 and Sale Deed No.1-3100 dated 02.08.2011. The respondents also relied on one Sale Deed No.1-1290 dated 08.12.2006 and another deed of partition vide Deed No.1-3496 dated 18.05.2007. 10. Determination of market price of the land, acquired under the provisions of L.A. Act, is no doubt, a difficult task. It is to be kept in mind just compensation is to be paid to the land owner for compulsory acquisition. 10. Determination of market price of the land, acquired under the provisions of L.A. Act, is no doubt, a difficult task. It is to be kept in mind just compensation is to be paid to the land owner for compulsory acquisition. Second proviso to Article 31A(1) prescribes that the compensation shall be paid at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. 11. A land holder has a right to retain his land and to use it at his own wisdom. If a land holder likes to dispose his land by sale or otherwise, he may make proposals and there is scope of bargain for him with the prospective purchaser. After such a bargain between the proposed seller and the intended purchaser, the parties arrive at a conclusion towards the price of land. When the parties settled to a price after such bargain, it is ordinarily presumed that it carries the market price. In a case of compulsory acquisition of land, a land holder may raise a claim before the L.A. Collector according to his estimation, but the award is made by the L.A. Collector based on his own consideration of the records and documents available before him. A land holder, therefore, has no participation in the final decision making in determination of the price of the land acquired by way of acquisition. Therefore, the law makers made the provision that an aggrieved land holder may approach the L.A. Collector to refer the matter to the L.A. Judge for proper determination of the market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. 12. Once a reference under Section 18 is made, the learned L.A. Judge is to try the matter like a civil suit and determine reasonable price of the land at the date of acquisition. There should not be any scope of illegal enrichment and similarly one should not be deprived of fair and reasonable compensation. A just and fair compensation is the right of a land holder and so, duty cast upon the courts to determine it taking into account the materials placed before it. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr., reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 has set out certain guiding factors to be kept in mind while determining compensation. 14. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr., reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 has set out certain guiding factors to be kept in mind while determining compensation. 14. It is a well settled principle that the best method to determine the compensation is to consider the prices obtained by contemporaneous sale instances, whether, of the same land or of the land in the vicinity. Various other factors may be taken into consideration such as the size and shape of land, the locality and its situation, the user, the potential value and the rise or depreciation of value of the land in the locality. Where sale instances of comparable lands are available on record and there is no dispute about the transaction of the sale instances, the Court can safely take it into consideration and make the award relying on such transaction. Normally sale instances of comparable land at or immediately before the date of acquisition are fairly taken into consideration. A sale instance entered after the date of notification of acquisition also may be taken into consideration if there is no sale instance at the date of acquisition. There is no bar that a sale instance after the date of acquisition cannot be at all taken into consideration and should be outright rejected. It would depend on case to case and the L.A. Judge has to decide on case to case basis. 15. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned L.A. Judge put reliance on the Sale Deed No.1-725 dated 19.01.2006 submitted by the referring claimants which obtained a price of Rs.1,47,05,882/-, whereas the learned L.A. Judge awarded compensation @ Rs.2,50,00,000/- per kani and there is no basis for allowing such a exorbitant price. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned L.A. Judge rightly discarded sale deed dated 02.08.2011 since it was after two years of the transaction. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the sale instance on which the learned L.A. Judge relied is not adjacent to the acquired land and so, that should not have been taken into consideration. He has also submitted that the sale instances proved on behalf of the appellants were not considered by the learned L.A. Judge. 16. Mr. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the sale instance on which the learned L.A. Judge relied is not adjacent to the acquired land and so, that should not have been taken into consideration. He has also submitted that the sale instances proved on behalf of the appellants were not considered by the learned L.A. Judge. 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the referring claimants submitted that both the sale instances were within the prime location of Agartala city and the acquired land were also in the top position of Agartala city which has been stated by DW1 also. A copy of the assessment note has been exhibited by the respondent-appellants and in that assessment note also it has been stated by the L.A. Collector that the acquired land were located at prime location. He has referred to the statement of DW1 made in paragraph 7(viii), wherein it has been stated that the proposed land is located at prime location of Agartala city. It is also submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, that the Sale Deed No.1-1290 dated 08.12.2006 proved on behalf of the L.A. Collector was a sale transaction of Mouja-Badharghat, far away from Agartala main city and the other deed No.1-3496 dated 18.05.2007 is a deed of partition and not a sale deed. On perusal of both the deeds, marked as Exbt.-A series, on which the respondents relied, I find that learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, made perfectly correct submission. Sale deed dated 08.12.2006 relates to transaction of land at Mouja-Badharghat and the other deed dated 18.05.2007 is a deed of partition. Though it is not reflected in the judgment passed by learned L.A. Judge, I am constrained to observe that those deeds cannot be taken into consideration in any manner. 17. The deed dated 19.01.2006 relied by the referring claimants is located in a prime location of the Agartala city and valued at Rs.1,47,05,882/- per kani. Land of other deed dated 02.08.2011 is situated near to the acquired land and the price obtained is Rs.4,25,53,191/- per kani and that land was sold with a building. 18. It is an admitted position that Colonel Chowmuhani is a prime location of Agartala city and both the sale instances proved by the referring claimants are also in the prime location. The price of land is in the increase and that is known to all. 18. It is an admitted position that Colonel Chowmuhani is a prime location of Agartala city and both the sale instances proved by the referring claimants are also in the prime location. The price of land is in the increase and that is known to all. Some sorts of guess work and some sorts of hypothesis always be applied while determining compensation. The referring claimants lost their most precious land in the prime location of the city and so, determination of compensation @ Rs.2,50,00,000/- per kani cannot be said to be exorbitant. Since sale deed dated 02.08.2011 was after the date of acquisition and it was for land with a three storied building, that sale deed may not be taken into consideration for determining the price of the acquired land, but it reflects an idea about increase of price of land in the city area. 19. In my considered opinion, the decision taken by the learned L.A. Judge cannot be said to be altogether a harsh decision in respect of the price of the land taking into account the factor that the land is in the prime location of the Agartala city and hence, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, it stands dismissed. The cross objection is also dismissed since I find nothing to further enhance the compensation. 20. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.