JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and Award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro at Chas whereby he has disposed of 30 reference cases filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. 2. It appears that notification for acquisition of 92.67 acres of land in Mouza Dugda and Sursera village within Dugda PS was issued on 16.6.1981 and subsequently awards were made under different awards and communicated to the claimants. The claimants received awarded compensation under protest and preferred application under Section 19 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants is that the land acquired for the Dugda Coal Washery are not properly classified and no compensation according to market value of the land has been paid to them. According to the claimants, acquired lands are paddy lands and are fit to be used for residential, industrial and other commercial purposes. There are several residential houses of colony of M/s B.C.C. Ltd. and Dugda Coal Washery. Further case of the claimants was that the lands are connected with pucca road and the electricity is also available by the side of the lands. Schools, colleges, hospital and other organizations are situated very near to the acquired lands. The claimants therefore claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per decimal. 3. The case of the appellant-State of Bihar and M/s B.C.C. Ltd. as per their rejoinder is that the lands acquired are waste lands and barren lands and situated near Damodar river and all the lands are not paddy lands rather portion of the lands are paddy lands and rest are Tand and Gair Mazarua Aam Lands. 4. The claimants proved two sale deeds dated 11.10.1980 (Exts. 1 and 1/A) in support of their case that two decimals of land alongwith house was sold at Rs. 6,000/-. The claimants also adduced oral evidence by examining five witnesses in order to show that the acquired lands are 1st class bahal lands and it has got potential to produce crops. The appellant/State filed carbon copy of rate report dated 30.1.1985 (Ext. C), sale chart of village Bur-sera (Ext. D) and the sale chart of village Dugda (Ext. D/1). The appellants also examined one witness namely, Ramji Mishra, Kanungo of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chas, Bokaro. 5. The appellant/State filed carbon copy of rate report dated 30.1.1985 (Ext. C), sale chart of village Bur-sera (Ext. D) and the sale chart of village Dugda (Ext. D/1). The appellants also examined one witness namely, Ramji Mishra, Kanungo of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chas, Bokaro. 5. The Land Acquisition Judge (in short Court below) disagreeing with Exts. A and A/1 held that the same are not admissible into evidence. The Court below further held that Exts. D and D/1, sale chart also cannot be relied upon as the same are inadmissible into evidence. Relying upon the evidence of the claimants witnesses and the two sale deeds Exts. 1 and 1/A the Court below assessed the value of entire land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per decimal. 6. I have heard Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned SC-II appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. From perusal of Ext. C, which is rate report prepared on the basis of sale chart (Ext. D/1 and D/2), it will appear that the nature of the land has been categorically classified. Out of total acquired land measuring 92.67 acres dhan 1 land 8.51 acres, dhan 2 land 57.3 acres, dhan 3 lands 0.68 acres, land 2 lands 21.43 acres tand 3 lands 3.62 acres and gairmazama aam lands 1.12 acres. This rate report and sale chart have been proved and marked Ext. C, Exts D and D/1. These documents have been proved by OPW 1 Ramji Mishra, Kanungo, Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. From perusal of his deposition, it appears that when these documents were proved and marked Ext., no objection was raised by the claimants, regarding adrnissibility of these documents. Even no suggestion was given while examining this witness that those documents are not authentic documents. In such circumstances when a document was proved by a witness in accordance with law and was marked Ext. without objection the Court below was in grave error of law in saying that these documents are inadmissible into evidence. Consequently finding of the Court below that the appellants have not produced any documents to show the classification of lands is perverse in law. 8. As noticed above, from perusal of Exts. C, D and D/l, it appears that the entire lands are not either paddy lands or waste lands. Consequently finding of the Court below that the appellants have not produced any documents to show the classification of lands is perverse in law. 8. As noticed above, from perusal of Exts. C, D and D/l, it appears that the entire lands are not either paddy lands or waste lands. The Court below put heavy reliance on two sale deeds whereby two decimals of lands alongwith house was sold at Rs. 6,000/- each. There is no separate mention in sale deed regarding value of the lands and the value of that constructed house. The Court below has committed error of record in holding that the cost of the house and the cost of the land has been separately established by AW 5 when as a matter of fact AW 5 is neither a purchaser nor vendor of the said sale deeds and the value of the land and the house has not been separately mentioned therein. But at the same time, valuation fixed by the Land Acquisition Authority can also not be accepted as correct value. The Land Acquisition Authority valued the paddy growing land at the rate of Rs. 230/- per decimal only, for dhan 2 land Rs. 148/- per decimal, for dhan 3 land Rs. 119/- per decimal, for tand 2 land Rs. 29/- per decimal, for tand 3 lands Rs. 14/- per decimal and for gairmazama aam land Rs. 23/- per decimal. On the face of the value fixed by the authority, it appears that it is very low. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in course of argument has submitted that the claim of the respondents are pending for more than two decades and instead of remitting the matter to the Court below this Court may fix reasonable compensation payable to them. Learned State counsel has no objection if this Court assesses the appropriate value of the land, so that compensation amount could be paid to the claimants. 10. If we take two sale deeds as the basis of valuation, two decimals of land alongwith. house was sold at Rs. 6,000/- in the year 1980. From the sale deeds it appears that the house is a pucca house consisting of two rooms and one varanda and courtyard. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that construction is not over the entire two decimals of land rather it is only over the 300 sq. feet. house was sold at Rs. 6,000/- in the year 1980. From the sale deeds it appears that the house is a pucca house consisting of two rooms and one varanda and courtyard. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that construction is not over the entire two decimals of land rather it is only over the 300 sq. feet. Even if constructed portion is taken as 250 sq. feet and cost of construction is taken as Rs. 15/- per sq; feet, the value of the house comes to about Rs. 4,000/- and value of two decimals of lands would be about Rs. 2,000/-. If deduction of l/3rd is made for the sale of the similar land it will come to Rs. 750/- per decimal. In my opinion, in no case valuation of the land would be more than Rs. 750/- per decimal. Learned counsel for the claimants and also the State very fairly and rightly contended that the valuation of the lands be assessed at Rs. 750/-per decimals. 11. Taking into consideration the fact and evidence on record and the clear submission made by the counsel for both the parties, the valuation of land fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is reduced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 750/- per decimal. The impugned judgment is therefore modified to that extent. The award for payment of compensation under different heads are therefore affirmed. 12. These appeals are therefore allowed in part and the impugned judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge is modified at the reduced value of land from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 750/- per decimal.