JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Since these appeals arose out of the common Judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in bunch of reference cases the same are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. It appears that some time in the year 1985 by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act about 3.78.39 acres of land of different classification situated in Mouza Relgaria P.S. Baliapur District Dhanbad was acquired by the State of Bihar for colliery purpose. After notification declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 12.6.1985. The delivery of possession of the land was taken by the concerned authority on 30.10.1987 and 31.10.1987. After the said acquisition, the award was prepared by the Collector and dissatisfied with the award claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act. This is how all these reference cases came before the Land Acquisition Judge. 3. The Land Acquisition Judge (in short Court below) formulated two points for consideration : (i) Whether the compensation paid to the Applicants in all the above reference cases are not just and proper as per prevailing market rate of the sale of land and if so what will be the proper quantum of valuation. (ii) Whether the classification of the acquired land done by the Land Acquisition Department are proper or it should be bahal and homestead land as claimed by the applicants. 4. Point No. 2 regarding classification of land has been decided by the Court below in favour of the State holding that classification of land has been made in accordance with the facts and evidence available on record. Against the said finding one claimant has filed the appeal being F.A. No. 2/1990. So far Issue No. 1 is concerned the Court below has held that the assessment and valuation of the land made by the Collector on the basis of the annual produce from the land is not in accordance with law in as much as the valuation ofland on the basis of produce should be done only where there is no sale figure available, consequently, the Court below enhanced the valuation assessed by the Land Acquisition Department. Aggrieved by the said judgment these appeals have been filed by the State of Bihar. 5. I have heard Mr. Manjul Prasad and S. Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant State and Mr. Aggrieved by the said judgment these appeals have been filed by the State of Bihar. 5. I have heard Mr. Manjul Prasad and S. Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant State and Mr. M.M. Banerjee and A. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant in F.A. No. 2/1990. 6. So far first point is concerned it has not been disputed that although claimants opposed the classification of the land made by the Land Acquisition Department but no evidence was adduced much less to the documentary evidence to show that classification of land was factually not correct. It has come in the evidence that classification of land has been done by the land Acquisition Department after prolonged inquiry. The Court below considering these facts held that the classification of acquired land done by the Land Acquisition Department is just and proper. I affirm the conclusion arrived at by the Court below with regard to classification of the land. 7. So far first point regarding compensation of valuation of the land is concerned Mr. Manjul Prasad counsel for the State very fairly submitted that no evidence was lead from the side of the State in support of the valuation fixed by the Collector, save and except rate report. It is well settled that the valuation of the acquired land can be made on the basis of the produce only where there is no evidence available with regard to sale and purchase of the land within the vicinity of the land acquired by the Government. The claimant/ respondents in support of their case exhibited four sale deeds as Ext. 1 to 1/C. Ext. 1/A is sale deed of the 1984, Ext. 1/B is sale deed dated 12.3,1985 executed just three months before the issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by which land was sold admittedly 300/-per decimal, it is worth to mention here that Land Acquisition Department collected about 20 sale figure from the District Registry Office executed just within one year before acquisition but the Collector rejected all that reports on the plea that either rate is high or low and fixed the valuation of the land on the basis of the annual produce. 8. 8. In my opinion therefore, the assessment of valuation of the land made by the Court below on the basis of the sale of the adjacent land of some of the village is perfectly legal and justified. Point No. 1 decided by the Court below also therefore needs no interference. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.