JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2015 delivered by the Land Acquisition Judge, (Court No. 3), West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. (LA) 89/2010. 2. For the purpose of construction of drill site and waste DSA & approach road at location KUAC under Mouja Indranagar, sheet No.2/5(P) and 2/7(P) under Sadar Sub Division in the West Tripura District, land measuring 6.5 acres of different class was acquired by notification dated 14.12.2005 made under Section 4 of the L.A. Act followed by declaration dated 21.01.2006 made under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. 3. ‘Nal’ class of land belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose and regarding classification and quantity of land acquired there is no dispute. L.A. Collector in the process determined compensation of ‘Nal’ class of land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per kani. The referring claimants i.e. the appellant, felt aggrieved in respect of quantum of compensation and filed application for making reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and accordingly reference was made to the learned L.A. Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The reference so made in respect of the acquired land of the appellant was registered as Misc. (LA) 89/2010. 4. Both sides submitted claim statements and counter statements before the L.A. Judge. The referring claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of his claim he also proved some documents i.e. sale-deed No.1-7105 of the year 2004, sale-deed No.1-8511 of the year 2003, sale-deed No.1-10778 of the year 2011, photo copy of map of Mouja-Indranagar, Sheet No.2/8, photo copy of order dated 12.09.2005, photo copy of notification published in Dainik Sambad dated 21.12.2005 and Gazette Notification dated 10.02.2004 which were marked Exhibit-1 series. 5. On the other hand, the L.A. Collector also examined one witness, namely Shri Debananda Debbarma as O.P.W.1 and the copies of sale-deed Nos. 1-6431 dated 25.07.2003, 1-8511 dated 29.05.2006, 1-5662 dated 04.07.2003, 1-8065 dated 09.09.2003 which were marked as exhibit-A series. 6. Learned L.A. Judge after considering the evidence and materials on record, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani based on guesswork and did not rely on any of the sale instance. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. D.R.Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. D.R.Chowdhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2, L.A. Collector. 9. It is an admitted position that Mouja Indranagar is situated within Agartala Municipal council. It is also the admitted position that the price of land especially within urban area is on the increase arithmetically. The referring claimant has i.e. the appellant stated that the acquired land is situated near to various Government and Semi-Government organizations and is very potential land which can be converted to ‘Bastu’ class of land after a little bit of development. The respondents contended that appropriate price has been determined by the L.A. Collector and compensation as admissible has been paid to the referring claimants. 10. 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 of the acquired land or any other comparable land situated within the same Mouja and of same nature. 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 vicinity 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 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 is also to be taken into consideration. The future potential of the land shall also to be taken into consideration. 11. 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. The future potential of the land shall also to be taken into consideration. 11. 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 claimant to prove that he is entitled to a higher price than that what was determined by the L.A. Collector. In the appeal, as I find, the referring claimant examined himself and has stated that his acquired land is the most potential land and many Govt. establishments were situated near to the acquired land. Though the referring claimant relied on sale instances but he did not utter a single word about the location of the land transacted under those sale instances. The referring claimant even did not adduce any evidence to show that the lands involved in the sale instance were comparable land and that the price obtained in the exemplar deeds should be the price of the acquired land. On behalf of L.A. Collector also some sale instances were put in evidence. 12. Having gone through the assessment note of the L.A. Collector, I find that Sale-deed No. 1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 was of ‘Bastu’ class of land and the transaction was made @ Rs. 20,00,000/- (twenty lakh) per kani which was 90 feet away from the acquired land. The land belonging to the referring claimant was ‘Nal’ class of land. A ‘Nal’ class of land may be converted to ‘Bastu’ class of land after development. This sale instance was discarded by the L.A. Collector only on the ground that it was ‘Nal’ class of land. Though it was observed by the L.A. Collector that there was rapid urbanization in the area since Mouja Indranagar is within the Agarala Municipal council, there was every possibility of converting the ‘Nal’ class of land to ‘Bastu’ or other potential class of land. Even if we reduce 75% of the price obtained by sale-deed dated 24.09.2003 then also the acquired land may fetch at least Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. Some sort of guess work and some sorts of assumption and presumption always take place while determining the compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. The referring claimants could not prove the sale instances as of comparable land of the acquired land. Some sort of guess work and some sorts of assumption and presumption always take place while determining the compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. The referring claimants could not prove the sale instances as of comparable land of the acquired land. The L.A. Collector discarded sale deed No.1-8511 dated 24.09.2003 only on the ground that it was of ‘Bastu’ class. The other sale deeds which relates to ‘Nal’ class of land carried value @ Rs.80,000/- per kani and taking into account those sale-deeds the L.A. Collector awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per kani. 13. In my opinion, the L.A. collector as well as learned L.A. Judge was supposed to consider the price of ‘Bastu’ class of land which was situated only 90 feet away from the acquired land and making certain reasonable deduction towards development charges would determine the compensation for the acquired land. A ‘Nal’ class of land can be easily developed as a ‘Bastu’ class of land by earth filling and making some sorts of other development works. So, for such development maximum we can deduct 75% of the total price which was availed by sale deed dated 24.09.2003. Since that sale deed carries a price of Rs.20,00,000/- per kani, we may deduct 75% of the sum towards the development and in my considered opinion, the acquired land may be valued @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. So, taking into account the potentiality of the land in the locality, I think the compensation may be awarded for the ‘Nal’ class of land @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed partly to that extent. The price of the acquired land is enhanced to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- per kani from the price what the learned L.A. Judge has decided. The referring claimants i.e. the appellants should be paid compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per kani of the acquired ‘Nal’ class of land in addition to other compensation as already determined and directed to be paid by the L.A. Judge. 15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 16. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.