JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 22nd December, 1993 and award dated 19.3.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1 of 1991 and 5 of 1991 respectively whereby and where under the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-cum- Land Acquisition Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj allowed both the reference cases and enhanced the quantum of compensation. 2. It appears that pursuant to the notification dated 1.3.1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette, LA Case No. 1 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and by another notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA Case No. 5 of 1991 was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of rehabilitation of displaced persons on account of Oranga Submergence Area. After issuance of notification, compensation was assessed and award was prepared. The claimants disputed the valuation of the lands fixed by the Collector and sought reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The case of the claimants in both the cases is that lands coming under acquisition are Dhan-I land and portion there of is first class and second class of Tand land with agricultural produce and valuable piece of land. At the time of acquisition, land was being sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, but Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed the land at the rate of Rs. 14,737/- per acre which is too low. It was also claimed that land is developed one and in and around the area of acquired land, there is school and pucca road, etc and, therefore, valuation assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is very low. In Case No. 1 of 1991 it was claimed that land of Tand-II was being sold a little before the acquisition at the rate of not less than Rs. 40,000/- per acre and that of Tanr land, the selling rate was not less than Rs. 26,000/- per acre and the nature of land as the Nala contained was also Tanr land and the award relating to the same only at the rate of Rs. 4912/- per acre was highly inadequate which should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 26000/- per acre. 26,000/- per acre and the nature of land as the Nala contained was also Tanr land and the award relating to the same only at the rate of Rs. 4912/- per acre was highly inadequate which should have been valued at the rate of Rs. 26000/- per acre. It was also claimed that there was as many as five pucca and kudia houses for various purposes and the total value thereof in no case could be less than Rs. 75,000/- and award is completely silent with respect to the prices of the houses. The price should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre and also at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer has deliberately fixed the price of land measuring 22.35 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 14,737/- per acre which is much below the prevailing market rate. 4. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses have been examined including the claimant himself. AW 2 is Doman Thakur. He is an Assistant in the Registry Office, Daltonganj, who is a formal witness. He has proved one sale deed No. 10306. This sale deed has been marked as Ext. 1 This witness has also proved another sale deed No. 3907 dated 4.5.1992. He has also proved one sale deed No. 12945 executed by Amrit Choudhary in favour of Gopal Sao and these sale deeds have been marked as Exts. 2 and 3. From perusal of the sale deed which is marked Ext. 1, it appears that 5 3/4 decimals of land was sold by Jagdish Choudhary at Rs. 40,000/- on 17.9.1988 and Ext. 2 shows that about 46 decimals of land was sold at Rs. 15000/- and Ext 3 shows that about 10 decimals of land of village Hishra alias Pokhraha was sold at Rs. 9500/- and these sale deeds prove that the land at the time of acquisition was being sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 5. AW 3 has come to support the case of the applicants and has stated that he has also culturable land at village Pokhraha. The land of the claimants has been acquired for Koel Project. There are five houses standing over the lands under Khata No. 56 which were demolished by bulldozer. He has completely supported the case of the claimants. 6. The land of the claimants has been acquired for Koel Project. There are five houses standing over the lands under Khata No. 56 which were demolished by bulldozer. He has completely supported the case of the claimants. 6. On the other hand, three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Department namely Shamsher Singh, Frances Minz and Krishna Murari Prasad. O.P.W. 1 has stated that he is Surveyor in the Land Acquisition Department. He has surveyed the land of village Pokhraha and measured the aforesaid land and made classification of the land but, classification report has not been produced in the Court. He has failed to say about existence of school, etc. nearby the area. 7. O.P.W. 2 and 3 are witnesses on similar points. O.P.W. 3 is Krishna Murari Prasad. He has" measured the land under acquisition and he had noted classification of the land and had witnessed things standing over the land which were verified by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The sale rate was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, but no sale report has been brought on record. 8. After scrutinizing evidence-both oral and documentary-produced on behalf of the parties, the learned Court below came to a finding that valuation of the lands at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs. 40,000/- per acre and allowed Rs. 75,000/- for the houses standing over the land. 9. Similarly, in Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 1991, 7.44 acres of Tanr lands of village Hishra alias Pokhraha was acquired for rehabilitation of displaced persons on account of the Oranga Submergence Area and this reference case was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Judge. The claim of the claimants that the land at the time of acquisition was being sold at Rs. 40,000/- per acre, but the Land Acquisition Officer has assessed the value at Rs. 14,737/- per acre which is too low as the lands of the same nature in that very village were sold in the year 1988 at the rate of Rs. 40,0.00/- per acre and even more than that. In this connection, claimant examined two witnesses including himself. AW 2 is Bhagwan Das who is a formal witness and he has proved sale deed executed by Sohagin Devi which is Ext. 40,0.00/- per acre and even more than that. In this connection, claimant examined two witnesses including himself. AW 2 is Bhagwan Das who is a formal witness and he has proved sale deed executed by Sohagin Devi which is Ext. 1 which shows that 5-3/4 decimals of land was sold in village Pokhraha in the year at a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. This goes to show that the land at the time of acquisition was being sold at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. 10. On the other hand, one witness has been examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Department. AW 1 is Shamsher Singh. But according to his evidence, he measured the aforesaid land and made classification report but no such report has been brought on record. O.P.W. No. 2 Krishna Murari Prasad has deposed in reference case No. 1 of 1991 and his evidence is worth nothing. 11. After scrutinizing evidence-both oral and documentary-the learned Land Acquisition Judge fixed the rate of the land at Rs. 40.000/- per acre and Rs. 10,000/- was valued for the houses which were demolished by the Bulldozer besides he has granted other statutory benefits. 12. While assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case, while passing the award, no order for deduction of 40% of compensation amount towards development charge has been made and in this connection, Shimla Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 1791 was relied upon. Para 3 of the judgment is quoted herein below : "3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23.1.1986 acquiring land situated at Patti Rihana I and II and Kasumpati Junga of Tehsil and District Shimia. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. On reference, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/-. On appeal, the High Court after deducting 40% of the compensation awarded towards developmental charges, has confirmed the same in the impugned judgment. Shri H.K.Puri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in several judgment, this Court has confirmed deduction upto 40% of the compensation towards development charges and thai, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. Shri H.K.Puri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in several judgment, this Court has confirmed deduction upto 40% of the compensation towards development charges and thai, therefore, the same ratio would be maintained in all the cases. In some cases this Court has pointed out that depending upon the location of the land and development needed, deduction between 30% to 40% was proper and was approved. In this ease the Division Bench has accepted thus : "I am of the view a deduction of the 40% would be reasonable". 13. Reliance was further place upon K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1996 (2) SCC 62 wherein same proposition has been laid down with regard to the valuation of land for compensation and lands situated in a developing area but no development had taken place as of the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and extent of deduction for development charges fixed were held to be justified. 14. It was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sale deeds brought on record were not proved in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act and, therefore, those sale deeds cannot be considered and taken into consideration because those documents have not been proved in accordance with law. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents referred to Section 51A of the Land Acquisition.. Act, 1894 wherein it has been provided that in any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Reliance has also been placed upon State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 2001 (2) JLJR (SC) 527 wherein it has been held that certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that sale deeds which have been brought on record are not admissible in view of the fact that they have not been properly proved in view of the provisions of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act which has been discussed above. 17. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that sale deeds which have been brought on record are not admissible in view of the fact that they have not been properly proved in view of the provisions of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act which has been discussed above. 17. From the discussions made above and after going through the materials on record and submission made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the land in question requires some development and, therefore, 30% of the awarded amount should be deducted towards development cost and besides this, order of the learned Court below does not require any interference. In that view of the matter, these appeals are partly allowed with the observations made above; however there will be no order as to costs.