JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Heard. On the consent of the parties, the appeal stands disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11, C.P.C. The Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Talcher-Sambalpur Rail Link, Angul has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging to the award passed on 26.4.1997 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Angul, in L.A. Misc. Case No. 73 of 1994 under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The fact which is not in dispute between the parties is that an area of Ac. 0.25 decimals of Bajefasal category of land belonging to the respondent in village Nankapasi was acquired by the State vide declaration No. 55694 dated 1.9.1989 published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 1299 dated 7.9.1989, That land was acquired for construction of Talcher-Sambalpur Railway line. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate states that appellant assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per acre and determined the compensation @ Rs. 3,875/- excluding the statutory benefits. In that respect the awarded amount of compensation under Section 11 of the Act as received by the respondent on protest and claimed for higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per gunth. Thus reference was made to the Civil Court. 3. In course of inquiry in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Angul, petitioner examined two witnesses and relied on some registered sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2. While not accepting such registered sale deeds as the basis for determina¬tion of the valuation, but taking into consideration, some of the oral assertions of the said two witnesses, learned Civil Judge determined the rate of compensation at Rs. 28,000/- per acre and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- for the said land besides Rs. 500/- for loss of the standing trees. The Court below also allowed statutory benefits relating to solatium, additional compensation and interest etc. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate argues that the enhanced rate of market price of the acquired land is not only on the basis of no evidence but also on the higher side. He also states that in the absence of proof of any documentary evidence regard¬ing existence of any trees, grant of compensation of Rs. 500/- (five hundreds) on that count is also not sustainable. He also states that in the absence of proof of any documentary evidence regard¬ing existence of any trees, grant of compensation of Rs. 500/- (five hundreds) on that count is also not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned award but he is unable to justify the award relating to loss of standing trees and the compensation awarded on that count. 5. On consideration of the contention of the parties and the fact that appellant did not choose to lead any evidence in support of the valuation put by him in the award under Section 11 of the Act, this Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the method of assessment made by the Reference Court to arrive at a valuation higher than that was awarded under Section 11 of the Act. Under such circumstance, the valuation of Rs. 28,000/- per acre is not disturbed. So far as the compensation of Rs. 500/- is concerned, in the absence of any documentary proof relating to existence of standing tree, learned Civil Judge should not have acted on the verbal assertion of the claimant in that respect. That finding and determination of compensation of Rs. 500/- assessed towards the loss of trees is therefore not sustainable and accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the award with respect to the determina¬tion of valuation of land is upheld, but the compensation granted towards the loss of tree is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed in part and the award is modified to that extent. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs of litigation. Hearing-fee is assessed at contested scale. After deducting the amount, which has been received by the respondent/claimant, balance amount be paid to him as expedi¬tiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months and failing that claimant/respondent shall be entitled to recover the same in due process of law. Appeal allowed in part.