JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This appeal has been directed against the order dated 14.12.1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jeypore, in M.J.C. No. 113 of 1988. 2. The case of the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer in brief is that, in pursuance to notification dated 24.11.1987 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, lands having an area of Ac. 09.30 cents consisting of both paddy-Ill and dry-ll lands of village Nuagaon in the district of Koraput were declared to be acquired at the instance of the Executive Engineer, Upper Kolab Hydro-Electricity Project (Division No. II), Koraput for construction of Upper Kolab Hydro-Electricity Project, Compensation was paid to the awardee-respondent on 28.3.88 after due enquiry and the awardee-respondent received the compensation on protest and had prayed to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation. The case of the respondent-claimant is that, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation without considering the prevailing market value of the acquired lands. Further, the potential value of the acquired lands was not taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the respondent-claimant prayed to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jeypore. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Jeypore, after consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 15.12.1994 held that the claimant respondent is entitled for higher compensation of Rs. 5000/- only per acre for paddy-Mi lands and Rs. 3000/- per acre for dry-ll Dangara lands with other amenities admissible as per the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The contention of Mr. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel, is that, the court below has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of market value of the lands in question. His further contention is that the learned Civil Judge had erroneously relied on Ext. 6, the document produced by the respondent-claimant and the lands relating to Ext. C are of similar nature to the present acquired lands and the court below has awarded higher compensation basing on Ext. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the court below has rightly passed the order after considering evidence of both the parties relating to the market value and also the potential value of the acquired lands and determined the valuation of the lands. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the court below has rightly passed the order after considering evidence of both the parties relating to the market value and also the potential value of the acquired lands and determined the valuation of the lands. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the court below for determining the compensation amount. 5. In order to prove his case, the respondent-claimant has examined three witnesses and proved six documents i.e., five sale-deeds and one certified copy of the order in M.J.C. No. 112 of 1988 passed by the same Civil Judge relating to the same area. The appellant-opposite party has also examined one witness and proved five documents in favour of his case. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the compensation awarded in respect of the acquired lands for the Upper Kolab Hydro-Electricity Project. The acquisition of the lands was made by the Executive Engineer, U.K.H.E., Project Division by a declaration dated 24.11.87 published In the Orissa Gazette (Part- II) dated 3.12.87. The area acquired covers about Ac. 09.30 cents of village Nuagaon. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs, 2500/-per acre for Dangara-lll lands and Rs, 1210/- per acre for Dangara-II lands. The respondent-claimant received the amount with protest. Therefore, the reference u/s 18 was made to the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)-cum-Land Acquisition Tribunal and the same was disposed of by awarding higher compensation. 6. In the present case, there was no allegation by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer that Ext. 6 is not a genuine document. Rather Ext. 6, which is the certified copy of the order passed in M.J.C. No. 112 of 1988 shows that the present respondent-claimant got compensation of Rs. 5000/- per acre for paddy-lit lands and Rs. 3000/- per acre for Dangara- II lands in the year 1988. Rather Exts. 1 and 2, the sale-deeds produced by the respondent are much prior to the notification for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- and Ext. 3 is also a sale-deed in respect of Dangara- II lands which situates at Chasahandi mouja for a consideration of Rs. 2300/-jn the year 1988 and Ext. 4, which is of the year 1988 for Dangara-ll lands of the same mouja was sold for a consideration of Rs. 7000/-. The lands were acquired for the Upper Kolab Project in the year 1988. 2300/-jn the year 1988 and Ext. 4, which is of the year 1988 for Dangara-ll lands of the same mouja was sold for a consideration of Rs. 7000/-. The lands were acquired for the Upper Kolab Project in the year 1988. The certified copies of the sale-deeds produced by the claimant are also relating to the years either just prior to or before the year of the acquired lands. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision reported in 2001 (5) Sup 321 State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, where their Lordships have held that as far as the provisions of the Evidence Act are concerned, a certified copy of the registered sale-deed is admissible In evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. By applying the same principle, the learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the documents produced by the claimant-respondent. Exts. D and E, the certified copies of the sale-deeds are of the year 1984 and 85 which have been produced by the Land Acquisition Officer. These sale-deeds are much prior to the date of notification/acquisition. Therefore, they cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation basing upon the working-sheet i.e. Ext. B and the same was also produced before the learned Civil Judge. In the instant case the Land Acquisition Officer has not been examined himself before the court below so as to prove Ext. B basing upon which the market value was assessed. The above apart, the suit lands were taken in possession by the Land Acquisition Officer as far as more than ten years back and at present the market value of lands has been increased too high. In that view of the matter, the evidence adduced by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer is of no help. Therefore, the lower appellate court has rightly assessed the higher compensation as because the Land Acquisition Officer's award is too low. 7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jeypore, is affirmed and the first appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed