Answer

As a rule, from the laws of overcharging we see that for land the price is not fixed, and therefore the laws of overcharging do not apply to land (because every parcel of land is different, so there is no defined market price for land). Even according to Rabbenu Tam’s view that the laws of overcharging do apply to land in the case of a discrepancy of half, it is still clear that the price is very far from fixed. From that, it would seem logically that with land, the money would not indicate. But in the Talmudic passage there I did not see such a distinction. Where did you see such a distinction there?