JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.R. Sen, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. P.D.B. Baruah, the learned Counsel for the Appellant and also heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned GA, for the Respondent-State. 2. By notification dated 16.02.1990 published in the official Gazette on 01.03.1990 a land measuring 12245 sq.m. was proposed to be acquired for improvement of Evelyne Ride Road (from 0-2.4 K.M.). Subsequently declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.11.1990 and published in the Official Gazette on 29.09.1990. After completion of the acquisition proceeding, the award was made by the Collector of the Respondent. The Appellant along with other claimant objected to the rate fixed by the Collector and received the awarded amount under protest. The Appellant and other land owners then filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the Court to decide the actual quantum of compensation to be paid to the land owners as per the prevailing price of land at the relevant time. 3. In the said land acquisition proceeding, the land of the Appellant measuring about 43309 sq.ft. was also acquired. The land of the Appellant consists of 3590 sq.m. or 38628.40 sq.ft. of Homestead land and 335 sq.m. or 335 sq.m. or 4680.60 sq.ft. of paddy field. As per the award of the Collector, the rate of Rs.32.28 per sq.m. was fixed for Homestead land, Rs.53.80 per sq.m. for paddy field and Rs.43.04 per sq.m. for garden land. The Appellant in her claim petition has claimed the rate of Rs.40 per sq.ft. for Homestead and garden land and Rs.50 per sq.ft. for paddy field. The total claim of the Appellant for compensation was Rs.47,53,096.90. 4. The Court of Special Judicial Officer on receipt of the petition under Section 18 from the Respondent registered the case of the Petitioner as L.A. Case No. 30 (K) 1991. Other cases were registered as L.A. Case No. 31 (K) 1991 to L.A. Case No. 39 (K) 1991 of the said reference cases were disposed of by the Special Judicial Officer by judgment dated 9.3.94 and decree dated 9.3.94, dismissing the claim petition of all the claimants including that of the Appellant. 5. Other cases were registered as L.A. Case No. 31 (K) 1991 to L.A. Case No. 39 (K) 1991 of the said reference cases were disposed of by the Special Judicial Officer by judgment dated 9.3.94 and decree dated 9.3.94, dismissing the claim petition of all the claimants including that of the Appellant. 5. After the said judgment and decree passed by the Special Judicial Officer, the Appellant filed a review application for review of the said judgment and decree which was registered as (J) Misc. (Review) Case No. 55 (H) 1994. By the said review application, the Appellant has sought to review the judgment and order by introducing three documents namely; (1). Land valuation certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong on 9.4.94 showing the valuation of land at Langkyrding Lumshyiap, Shillong valued at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. during the year 1990, (2) Sale deed dated 17.2.1990 showing the sale of land at Chandmari, Lumshyiap, Shillong valued at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. during the year 1990 and (3) The sale deed dated 10.5.90 showing the sale of land at Pynthorumkhra, Khlieh, Shrong valued at Rs.30 per sq.ft. The learned Special Judicial Officer disposed of the review application by order dated 12.9.94. By the said order, the Special Judicial Officer has rejected the review application and did not allow the Appellant to introduce the said documents as evidence in the said reference cases. 6. Against the said order dated 12.09.94 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer in the L.A. (J) Misc. Case No. 55 (H) 1994, a revision petition was filed before this Court by the Appellant which was registered as Civil Revision No. 3(SH) 1995 (No. 552 of 1994). The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 3.1.97 disposed of the revision petition as follows: The Court below on consideration of the facts situations was not inclined to exercise its discretion to review its earlier order. No error of jurisdiction was committed by the trial Court in refusing to exercise it review power. For the reasons stated above, I have no option but to dismiss the present Revision, leaving it open to the Petitioner to seek for appropriate remedy in accordance with the law if they are so advised. It is however, made clear that this Court strictly confined itself in respect of the exercise of the power of review by the Court below. It is however, made clear that this Court strictly confined itself in respect of the exercise of the power of review by the Court below. I have not even remotely opined about the correctness of the judgment dated 9th March 1994 in L.A. Case No. 30 to 39 (K) of 1991 relating to the assessment of the compensation amount. 7. From the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the Appellant has sought to review the judgment and order of the learned Special Judicial Officer on the ground of the three documents having discovered by the Appellant at the subsequent stage after the reference cases were finally disposed of. However, the review petition of the Appellant was rejected by the Court below by order dated 12.9.94. The revision petition which was filed against the said order namely; Civil Revision No. 3(SH)95 was also dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 3.1.97. The question as to the introduction of the said three documents has therefore, been finally decided both by the Special Judicial Officer and affirmed by this Court. The question of accepting the said three documents has therefore, been finally decided and cannot be reopened again. The order dated 12.9.94 passed by the Special Judicial Officer and the judgment and order dated 3.1.97 passed by this Court has attained its finality. The filing of the Misc. Case for accepting the same documents in this appeal is no more tenable in law. 8. Mr. Sen, the learned senior counsel however, submitted that by order dated 25.8.2003, this Court has allowed the Appellant to file a petition for the production of the documents by way of additional affidavit, therefore, if such application is filed shall be considered when the regular appeal is heard. The documents which sought to be introduced in the said application are the same documents which were annexed with the review petition of the Appellant before the Special Judicial Officer which was disposed of by order dated 12.9.94 rejecting the documents. The said order of the Special Judicial Officer was affirmed by this Court by judgment and order dated 3.1.97 in Civil Revision 3(SH)95. The said documents were also included in this appeal as Annexures IV, V and VI, but since the same documents were rejected in the Review petition and affirmed by this Court, the introduction of the said documents by filing a misc. The said documents were also included in this appeal as Annexures IV, V and VI, but since the same documents were rejected in the Review petition and affirmed by this Court, the introduction of the said documents by filing a misc. case cannot be accepted as the decision with regard to those documents were already finally decided by the Special Judicial Officer as well as by this Court. 9. Mr. Sen also relied in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer, Appellant v. V. Narasaiah, Respondent reported in (2001) 3 SCC 530 and the case of Cement Corporation of India Ltd., Appellant v. Purya and Ors. Respondents reported in (2004) 8 SCC 270 . By the said judgment, the Apex Court has examined the question of admissibility of the certified copies of registered documents as provided under Section 51(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. As already observed the documents annexed by the Appellant in the appeal as well in the misc. case were already rejected in the review petition filed by the Appellant and affirmed by this Court. The question of examining/accepting those documents by this Court is barred as those orders and judgments passed in the review petition and affirmed by this Court in the revision petition has become final and those documents sought to be introduced were finally rejected. The same question cannot be reopened in this appeal when the order of the review Court and this Court have attained its finality. The question examining those documents as provided in the said decision of the Apex Court does not arise after the same were already rejected by the Special Judicial Officer in the review application and also affirmed by this Court in the revision petition. 10. Further a perusal of the judgment and order dated 3.1.97 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3(SH)95 shows that what has left open for decision is with regard to the correctness of the judgment dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer in L.A. Case No. 30 to 39(K)91, except with regard to the correctness of the said judgment, the entire claim of the Appellant has been rejected by the Special Judicial Officer and affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision petition 3(SH)95. 11. 11. Now the question to be seen as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the Special Judicial Officer in the case of the Appellant (L.A. Case 30(K)91) is correct or not. In the said case, the Special Judicial Officer has framed five issues which are as follows: 1. Whether the O.P. while assessing the rate of land did not take into consideration Section 23 of the L.A. Act? 2. Whether the land is a first class land and fetch a high price in the locality? 3. Whether rate as assessed is too low, unjustified and deserved for enhancement? 4. Whether the claims of the claimants are liable for enhancement? 5. What relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 12. Of all the issues framed, the issue Nos. 3 and 4 namely; whether rate as assessed is to low, unjustified and deserved for enhancement and issue No. 4 whether the claims of the claimants are liable for enhancement are inter connected and are taken up together. 13. In order to appreciate the evidence on record for deciding the above two issues we may refer to the evidence of the claimant/Appellant who was examined as CWI. This witness in her deposition has stated that she is the claimant in this case. The sale transaction of land in her area was Rs.50-60 per sq.ft. and she could not remember the rate fixed by the O.P./Respondents. Except this statement there is no other evidence produced by the claimant/Appellant to support her claim as the rate claimed by her. 14. The second witness (CW2) was examined by the claimant/Appellant stated that he knows about the acquisition of land for construction of Evelyne Ride to Mawpat, the rate of land at Mawpat varies from Rs.25- 40 per sq.ft. depending on the place. He also stated that the rate fixed by the O.P./Respondents is very low compared to the present rate in the locality. Except this statement there is nothing to support about the rate of land as stated by these witnesses. 15. The Appellant/claimant has also examined Anr. witness (CW3) this witness stated that she knows the acquisition of land in question. She also stated the rate of land at Lumshyiap is Rs.40 per sq.ft. and the claimant/Appellant sold her land at Lumshyiap at Rs.32/- per sq.ft. Except this statement there is no other evidence to support the claim of the claimant/Appellant in the case. witness (CW3) this witness stated that she knows the acquisition of land in question. She also stated the rate of land at Lumshyiap is Rs.40 per sq.ft. and the claimant/Appellant sold her land at Lumshyiap at Rs.32/- per sq.ft. Except this statement there is no other evidence to support the claim of the claimant/Appellant in the case. The claimant therefore, has failed to prove her claim with regard to the rate of land as claimed by the Appellant/claimant in the claim petition. 16. On the other hand the Respondent/O.P. has examined one witness who was dealing with the land acquisition cases in the office of the Collector/Respondent. According to this evidence, of this witness the assessment of the land was made by one EAC and the valuation was submitted to the O.P./Respondent in the prescribed form and he accepted the valuation of Exhibit B. There is no cross examination to this witness about the rate of land as claimed by the claimant/Appellant, not even a suggestion was put to this witness with regard to the rate of the land in the area at the relevant time. The Appellant/claimant has failed to prove her case. Both the issues are therefore, decided in the negative and against the Appellant/claimant. 17. With regard to the issue No. 2 whether the land is a first class land and fetch a high price in the locality, the evidence of the three CWs including the Appellant shows that there is no whisper about this issue. None of the witnesses made any statement about this issue. The issue is therefore decided in the negative. 18. With regard to issue No. 1 whether the O.P. while assessing the rate of land did not take into consideration Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the evidence of the claimant and her two witnesses did not indicate anything about that the land was not assessed as per provision of Section23 of the Act. There is also no cross examination to the official witness produced by the O.P. that the land was not assessed as per provision of Section 23 of the Act. The issue is therefore, decided in a negative and against the Appellant/claimant. 19. In view of the decision made on Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the Issue No. 5 is decided that the Appellant/claimant is not entitled to any relief. 20. The issue is therefore, decided in a negative and against the Appellant/claimant. 19. In view of the decision made on Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the Issue No. 5 is decided that the Appellant/claimant is not entitled to any relief. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has no merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.