Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a land reference case under the Land Acquisition Act and the State of Bihar has filed this appeal contending that the valuation of the acquired lands, arrived at by the learned District Judge is wrong and the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Collector should be restored. 2. It appears that an award was given in favour of three persons named Radha Krishna Chaudhary, Banarsi Chaudhary and Sukhdeo Singh. The first two persons are cousins and Sukhdeo Singh was said to be mortgagee in possession by virtue of a Bharna. Upon a consideration of the materials on record, the learned District Judge has fixed the valuation of the acquired lands at Rs. 200 per katha. 3. The learned Government Advocate has contended that having rejected the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the objector, Radha Krishna Chaudhary, there was no material on record for fixing the valuation of the lands at Rs. 200 per katha. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, namely, Radha Krishna Chaudhary has argued that the valuation is supported by a sale deed produced by his client, namely Exhibit 3(d), executed on the 30th March, 1957. According to this document, the sale price was about Rs. 200 per katha. It is argued by learned counsel for the contesting respondent that the notification under Sec. 4 or the Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on the 11th December, 1957, and therefore, the sale deed of the 30th March, 1957 was very relevant as to the valuation of the acquired lands. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the judgment under consideration and I am of the opinion that the valuation arrived at by the learned District Judge is fully supported by Exhibit 3(d), as is contended for by learned counsel for the contesting respondent. The learned District Judge has himself stated that the survey map will show that the plots sold by Exhibit 3(d) were not far away from the acquired lands. The learned Judge was, however, not inclined to accept the test to be obtained from Exhibit 3(d) on the ground that the consideration was not wholly cash consideration. The learned District Judge has himself stated that the survey map will show that the plots sold by Exhibit 3(d) were not far away from the acquired lands. The learned Judge was, however, not inclined to accept the test to be obtained from Exhibit 3(d) on the ground that the consideration was not wholly cash consideration. But, even the sale deed upon which the State had relied, for valuation, namely, Exhibit D dated the 6th July, 1956 also indicated that the consideration was not wholly cash consideration. Therefore, merely this fact should not be considered to be a factor upon which a sale deed must be rejected altogether As a document of the year 1957 brought on the record by the contesting respondent fully supports the figure arrived at by the learned District Judge, I do not think any occasion arises for interference. According to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent, the lands acquired were worth Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per katha. Therefore, when the learned Judge has allowed compensation for the lands at the rate of Rs. 200 per katha, this Court should not interfere and reverse the Judgment. Under these circumstances, the appeal must fail. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has drawn my attention to a petition filed in this Court on the 3rd October, 1964 by respondent No. 1, in which it is stated that on the 17th April 1964, this respondent has redeemed the mortgage deed dated the 30th May, 1941, which had been executed by his ancestor, in favour of Sukhdeo Singh. It is prayed in this application that this fact may be noted and no relief should be granted to Sukhdeo Singh for his legal rights. This matter has been left for consideration at the time of the hearing of the appeal itself. T have heard the learned counsel who has filed this application and all that can be said at this stage is that this application will be kept on the record of this case. When the appeal is going to be dismissed by this Court, it is not possible to vary the award decree passed by the learned District Judge on this ground, which is merely a statement of Radha Krishna Chaudhary. He may take such steps as are open to him after the decree has been prepared by this Court. 5. When the appeal is going to be dismissed by this Court, it is not possible to vary the award decree passed by the learned District Judge on this ground, which is merely a statement of Radha Krishna Chaudhary. He may take such steps as are open to him after the decree has been prepared by this Court. 5. The appeal has failed and it is dismissed, but, under the circumstances, without costs.