This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act arises from an Award passed by the learned Acquisition Judge, North Tripura Distrrict, Kailashahar, in Misc (LA) Case No. 13 of 1988. 2. A plot of land measuring 0.198 acres pertaining to CS Plot No.308/7578 of Kailashahar town was acquired by the Govt of Tripura by notification No.9 (8)ACG/REV/II 85 dated 28.2.1986 for the purpose of utilising this land for protection of Rangauti Gopinathpur Embankment. The Land Acquisition Collector in his Award determined compensaion @ Rs.37,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellants sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to the civil Court (LA Judge). Learned Land Acquisition Judge, in his award and decree dated 23rd December, 1989 enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per kani which otherwise denotes Rs.75,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector, dissatisfied with the Award of Reference Court, has preferred this appeal. 3. It is settled principle of law that in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when proceeding are taken under section 20 of the Act, the burden is always on the claimant like a plaintiff to adduce adequate and acceptable evidence to enable the Court to determine proper and just compensation for the acquired land. The claimant is to prove that the lands under acquisition are comparable with the land under the sale deeds relied upon in respect of value, nature and price. If such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the State to disprove it. 4. In this case, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has relied upon certain sale deeds which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, were not properly tendered in evidence. 5. On examination of the record of the learned trial Court, I find that the claimant only examined himself to prove his claim of enhanced compensation. The appellant examined an employee of the Collector's office. From the evidence of claimant it would appears that he has claimed compensation @ Rs.75,000/-per acre without tendering any document in evidence. The order sheet dated 30.11.1989 shows that as many as 10 documents were marked as Ext 1 to Ext 10 on rJehalf of the claimant-respondent and a number of documents were also marked as Ext A to Ext I for the appellant, on the ground that the parties have waived formal proof. The order sheet dated 30.11.1989 shows that as many as 10 documents were marked as Ext 1 to Ext 10 on rJehalf of the claimant-respondent and a number of documents were also marked as Ext A to Ext I for the appellant, on the ground that the parties have waived formal proof. Neither the vendor nor the vendee of any document have been examined to established that the sale consideration which passed under the sale deed is proved and prices paid were the real one between the willing vendor and willing vendee. 6. The way the documents have been accepted by the learned LA Judge, dispensing with formal proof thereof as required under provisions of section 91 of the Evidence Act, and that too, without tendering the documents in the evidence through the mouth of the witness is against all established principles of law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, failed to justify the acceptance of documents as apart of evidence by referring to a decision in Binani Properties Private Ltd. vs. M. Gulamali Abdul Hossain and Co., reported in AIR 1967 Calcutta 390 wherein the Calcutta High Court held as follows: "That apart, the oral evidence on the object of Binani, a property company, gets into the record unchallenged and un-cross-examined. Section 91 of the Evidence Act is no doubt there. But it refers only to the method or mode or proof. Now, the mode of proof is a question of procedure only and may therefore be waived. And when it is in fact waived (as here), there can be no subsequent objection. More, where the objection to be taken is not that the oral evidence on the object of Binani, the plaintiff company, is in itself inadmissible, but that the mode or proof put forward is irregular or insufficient (lack of best evidence: the charter of Binani), it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before such oral evidence is admitted to the record. The first defendant cannot lie by until the case comes to the stage of arguments and then complain for the first time of the mode of proof." 8. In the instant case, the documents accepted as Exts vide order dated 30.11. 1989 cannot be said to be a part of evidence as the said documents were not exhibited by PW 1 during the course of his oral statement. In the instant case, the documents accepted as Exts vide order dated 30.11. 1989 cannot be said to be a part of evidence as the said documents were not exhibited by PW 1 during the course of his oral statement. Because of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, it cannot be said that the requirement of law has been waived and the Court can place reliance on such sale deeds. The necessity of formal proof will stand dispensed with only in respect of documents admitted in the pleadings or when no objection is raised when such documents are tendered into evidence by a witness. Therefore, the decision of Calcutta High Court referred to above is not applicable in this case. Strangely, the claimant being the lone witness did not utter a single word about the price of the land of the neighbourhood. Obviously, the approach of the learned LA Judge in dealing with the matter has been wrong, and the exercise undertaken by him to determine the compensation payable on the basis of documents which are not part of the evidence is bound to flop. 9. For reasons above, this Court has not option but to set aside the Award and remand the matter to the learned Reference Court for decision afresh after giving opportunities to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties are to bear their respective costs.