A person who is liable must pay the value of the damage they do. But what does it matter whether it's from the best land or the worst land? Good land with value 200 zuz and bad land with value 200 zuz are both worth 200 zuz.
Nevertheless, the Torah and the discussion in the Gemara indicates that people prefer to get good land rather than bad land. If they do, the good land should be worth more than the bad land and one of them would be worth more (or less) than the value of the damage. So the size of the good property to be paid should be reduced or the size of the bad property increased to compensate, in which case no one would care whether they get the good or bad land.
So how is it possible that:
1. Both properties have value equal to the damage done, and yet
2. People prefer the good property to the bad one?
Daniel Kagan, Tel Aviv, Israel
That is human nature! Most people prefer a little less of good-quality goods than a little more of poor-quality. It is also logical, since in the long run something that is better-quality is likely to provide better service and to outlast its poor-quality counterpart much in the same way as most people will prefer a new smaller car than a larger second-hand one. In any event, if the claimant is happy with a larger plot of poor-quality land, there is nothing against the damager giving him that.
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler