JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself. 3. This is an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 against the judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 passed by the learned L.A. Judge(Additional District Judge, Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. Misc.(L.A.) 286 of 2011 for further enhancement of the award of compensation as ascertained by the learned L.A. Judge at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 4. The land acquisition proceeding has been started vide L.A. Case No.10(BLG/2010 by issuance of a Notification vide No.F.9(11)- REV/ACQ/XIV/10 P-1 dated 25.06.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide No.9(11)(REV)/ACQ/XIV/10 dated 27.07.2010 for the purpose of construction of drill site for the location KAD#17 under Bishalgarh Sub-Division, West Tripura District in respect of land measuring 1.31 acres covered by plot No.3818 under Khatian No.1265 situated at Mouja Dakshin Champamura, sheet No.4/P, class of land was ‘Bastu’(Tilla) and „Viti’(Tilla). The L.A. Collector awarded compensation of Rs.3,27,500/- for the land @ Rs.2,50,000/- per acre along with other statutory requirements. Considering all factors, the total value of the land along with solatium stands at Rs.4,47,177/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the said award determined by the L.A. Collector, the claimant-appellant had sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the matter was referred to the learned L.A. Judge for determination of the actual market value of the acquired land. 6. The referring claimant appeared before the learned L.A. Judge and submitted his claim statement. In his claim statement, he has stated that considering the potentiality and topographical position he had claimed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- per kani along with other incidental benefits in terms of the law. In support of his claim, the land owner relied on some documents, like registered sale deeds and valuation certificate of the land of the locality issued by the competent authority. In support of his claim, the land owner relied on some documents, like registered sale deeds and valuation certificate of the land of the locality issued by the competent authority. He has further stated in his claim statement that the acquired land is situated just adjacent to the village pucca (concrete) road. The land also enjoys all kinds of facilities, like electric connection, Class XII School, Panchayat Samiti Office, Zilla Parishad Office, Block Development Office, S.D.M. Office and the area is rapidly developing. It is also stated that the claimant-appellant after his retirement has started rubber plantation on the land and due to acquisition of the said land he has been deprived of the regular income which he was supposed to be earned from the said rubber plantation. The L.A. Collector did not at all consider those factors which he had suffered due to the acquisition of the land. The claimant-appellant also has become unemployed due to such acquisition. 7. The claim of the claimant-appellant was contested by the respondent OP No.3, the Asset Manager, ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, Badharghat, who also has submitted counter statement and defended the award of the L.A. Collector. In their counter statement, the ONGC authority has stated that the claim of the claimant-appellant is baseless and the acquired land has no potentiality. 8. The L.A. Collector also filed counter statement before the learned L.A. Judge. They have stated inter alia that there was no ground for enhancement and also stated that the assessment made by the L.A. Collector was just and fair and the assessment was made comparing various sale instances on prevailing market price adjacent to the land. Hence, the amount of compensation so assessed by the L.A. Collector i.e. the respondent No.2 in this appeal, was reasonable and acceptable. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned L.A. Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties has enhanced the award from Rs.1,00,000/- per kani to Rs.2,00,000/- per kani along with other incidental statutory benefits. 10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the finding and award made by the learned L.A. Judge, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for further enhancement, as according to them, the learned L.A. Judge has failed to consider the prevailing market price of the land. 11. Mr. 10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the finding and award made by the learned L.A. Judge, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for further enhancement, as according to them, the learned L.A. Judge has failed to consider the prevailing market price of the land. 11. Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the learned L.A. Judge has committed an error in differentiating the land between ‘bastu tilla’ and ‘viti tilla’. He has further submitted that the acquired land in question was having all facilities, like electricity, school and many other government offices. His contention is that the prevailing market rate of the land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.25,00,000/- per kani. Accordingly, Mr. Chowdhury has prayed for enhancement of the rate of the acquired land from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- per kani. 12. Per contra, Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent Nos.1 and 2 has emphatically submitted that the learned L.A. Judge has not committed any error in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- per kani for acquisition of the land in question. The learned G.A. has defended the finding and reasonings of the learned L.A. Judge. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the finding and reasonings given by the learned L.A. Judge in enhancing the compensation of the land from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 14. The learned L.A. Judge in his finding has categorically stated that „bastu tilla’ and ‘viti tilla’ are synonymous words. ‘Viti’ means a land where a hut or any kind of construction can be constructed for residential purpose. ‘Bastu’ means a land which can be used for residential purpose. ‘Bastu tilla’ and ‘viti tilla’ originally was ‘tilla’ class of land used for as human dwelling by changing its nature. 15. The learned L.A. Judge in his finding has further stated as under:- “One thing is clear that acquired land was acquired for the purpose of drilling of ONGC and rubber plantation was existed on the acquired land as claimed by the claimant petitioner. So, the land is suitable for human dwelling but not utilized for that purpose. 15. The learned L.A. Judge in his finding has further stated as under:- “One thing is clear that acquired land was acquired for the purpose of drilling of ONGC and rubber plantation was existed on the acquired land as claimed by the claimant petitioner. So, the land is suitable for human dwelling but not utilized for that purpose. In this case the admitted sale deed No.1-1583 dated 31.08.09 in respect of 2 gandas of land is found to be suitable exemplar and according to that document the value of the land was Rs.8,00,000/- per kani which was registered for 2 gandas meaning thereby either it would be for dwelling purpose for construction of “Dokan”. The acquired land was measuring 1.31 acres. For such huge quantity of land, definitely, value of this small quantity of land which is only for 2 gandas of land cannot be compared. Definitely the value of acquired land would be much lower than the actual value of small part of land. So in my consideration, 75% of the exemplar filed market value of the acquired is assessed at Rs.2,00,000/- per Kani at the time of acquisition.” 16. After my meticulous application of mind to the above finding and reasonings by the learned L.A. Judge, I find that the learned L.A. Judge has admitted that the land was having rubber plantation at the time of acquisition. Learned L.A. Judge has also admitted that the land is suitable for human dwelling but his finding that the land was not utilized for that purpose is quite unworthy, and according to me, it is unreasonable too for awarding fair compensation. Though learned L.A. Judge has admitted the sale deed No.1-1583 dated 31.08.2009 and the said land was found to be a suitable exemplar but he has not considered to make the award at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- only per kani because of the fact that the said sale instance was only meant for 2 gandas of land, but in the instant case the land measures about 1.31 acres. According to the learned L.A. Judge, for such huge quantity of land, definitely, value of the small quantity of land, which is only for 2 gandas of land, cannot be compared. 17. According to me, two factors have been roamed over the mind of the learned L.A. Judge. According to the learned L.A. Judge, for such huge quantity of land, definitely, value of the small quantity of land, which is only for 2 gandas of land, cannot be compared. 17. According to me, two factors have been roamed over the mind of the learned L.A. Judge. The first factor is that the sale deed No.1-1583 dated 31.08.2009 is for a small piece of land and it should not be the basis of awarding compensation for huge quantity of land measuring 1.31 acres. The second factor is that though the acquired land is suitable for dwelling purpose but the claimant-appellant did not construct his dwelling house at the time of acquisition of land and only on those two factors the learned L.A. Judge has reduced the market value of the acquired land by 75% of Rs.8,00,000/- per kani and has assessed the market price of the land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani. 18. True it is, that the market price for a small piece of land cannot be compared in awarding compensation for a huge quantity of land. The learned L.A. Judge while considering the aforestated two factors in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani, according to me, was not fair enough because of the admitted fact that the acquired land in question is comparable with the land against the sale deed No.1-1583 dated 31.08.2009 which was sold at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per kani. Non-construction of dwelling house cannot be a ground to award less compensation money to the land-looser. I also find force to the submission of learned G.A. that the valuation of a small piece of land cannot be compared with the valuation of larger piece of land. But, it is also equally true that in the instant case, the Court must be reasonable in assessing the valuation of the market price of the land. Considering all factors as discussed above, in my considered opinion, it would be just and fair to assess the market price of the land in question at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per kani. 19. Accordingly, I assess the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per kani. In addition thereto, the claimant-appellant will be entitled to other incidental statutory benefits as awarded by the learned L.A. Judge in his judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 passed in Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 286 of 2011. 19. Accordingly, I assess the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per kani. In addition thereto, the claimant-appellant will be entitled to other incidental statutory benefits as awarded by the learned L.A. Judge in his judgment and award dated 25.07.2015 passed in Case No. Misc.(L.A.) 286 of 2011. 20. With the aforestated observation and direction this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However, no cost.