JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26.8.1995 and award dated 14.9.1995 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 151 and 152 of 1992 and since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, hence they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In pursuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the District Gazette, 34 decimals of lands appertaining to khata No. 1271 comprised in survey khata No. 122 and 2 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 1335 comprised in khata No. 78 of village Kala Kusma within Jharia P.S., District Dhanbad were acquired by the State Government and award was prepared under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, being Award No. 13 for a sum of Rs. 934.36 paise in the name of applicants of L.A. Ref. Case No. 151/92 and award No. 1 for Rs. 41.20 paise in the name of applicant of L.A. Ref. Case No. 152/92. The applicant of both the reference cases protested the award and sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Further case of the applicants is that the land has wrongly been classified by the Land Acquisition Officer and that has been done according to old records of rights and the land is equally homestead land and it was reclaimed after the last cadastral survey and the land is fit for commercial as well industrial purposes at the time of notification of acquisition issued in the year 1987. Applicants have claimed that the land was being sold at the relevant time @ Rs. 5000/- per decimal and alleged that land acquisition authority has ignored the arbitrarily and on the basis of incorrect rate report. The applicants have further claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for severance of the land from the land acquired in the acquisition proceedings. Further applicant of reference case No. 152/92 has claimed higher compensation of the land @ 5000 per decimal besides additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for severance of his other land on similar allegation. The State of Bihar has not filed any written objection in both the reference cases. The State of Bihar contested the case by cross-examining the witnesses adduced by the applicants. 4. 50,000/-for severance of his other land on similar allegation. The State of Bihar has not filed any written objection in both the reference cases. The State of Bihar contested the case by cross-examining the witnesses adduced by the applicants. 4. The learned Court below, after recording evidence oral and documentary of both the sides and after scrutinizing the evidence oral and documentary on record, came to a finding and dismissed the reference as having no merit. 5. On behalf of the appellant-applicants, five witnesses have been examined in the case. AW 1 has come to say that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the applicant-appellant for their lands is inadequate as the market value of the lands during 1985- 86 was Rs. 5,000/- per decimal as the land was homestead in character at the time of acquisition because the land is surrounded by various industries, high schools, high coal plant, residential houses but he has got no personal knowledge about the amount. 6. AW 2 has come to say that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time of acquisition was Rs. 4,000/- per decimal on the ground that it is situated in and around residential houses, industries and offices of Central Government. There are facilities of roads, water and electricity and he claim Rs. 50,000/-as additional compensation on the ground that the land has lost its utility and potentiality due to acquisition of portion of the land. 8. AW 3 has deposed more or less the same, but in cross-examination he has stated that he is neither a purchaser nor a seller. 9. AW4 has given similar evidence and he has admitted that the lands were tand land at the time of acquisition. He has stated that a deal of land between Makbol Ahmad and Bhola Nath Mandal around the acquired land at a rate of Court. 10. AW 5, is another witness who has claimed that his father has sold the land at Rs. 4,000/- per kottha and these lands are claimed to be behind the acquired land of the applicants, but that sale-deed has not been brought on the record. 11. From the evidence of witnesses who has been examined on behalf of the applicants-appellants, it appears that none of the witnesses has got any personal knowledge about the valuation of the land and their evidence is hearsay evidence. 11. From the evidence of witnesses who has been examined on behalf of the applicants-appellants, it appears that none of the witnesses has got any personal knowledge about the valuation of the land and their evidence is hearsay evidence. Further, no such sale-deed has been brought on record about the alleged sale-deed which AWs 4 and 5 have stated in their evidence and, therefore, from the evidence of witnesses, no case for enhancement of awarded amount is made out. 12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Court below has not properly considered sale-deeds (Ext. 1 series) and appreciated the same. But in this connection, finding of the learned Court below regarding Ext. 1 series which are sale-deeds, is quoted herein-below wherein the learned Court below has fully discussed in great details about the sale-deed (Ext. 1 series): "10. The applicants have, however, placed on the record a few registered sale-deeds in respect of certain pieces of land in the village which have been admitted into evidence and marked Exts. 1 series. Ext. 1 is the registered sale-deed of the year 1985 in between Ajoy Kr. Agarwal, the applicant of L.A. Ref. 151/92 and one Birendra Kr. Agarwal by which 2.57 acres of land of the village has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Ext. 1/a is the certified copy of the registered sale-deed of the year 1986, by which 4 kattha of raiyati land of the same village has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 15,800/-. Ext. 1/b is the sale-deed of the year 1987 by which 10 dec. of land bounded by boundary walls has been sold for Rs. 20,000/- Ext. 1/c is the sale-deed of the year 1987 by which 24 dec. of raiyati land have been sold for Rs. 50000/-. While Ext. 1/b and Ext. 1/d relates to homestead lands, Exts. 1/a and 1/c do not describe the classification of lands dealt with thereunder. It is also not established by the evidence as to where and at what distance from the acquired lands the lands dealt with under the various sale- deeds referred to above, are situated. In such a situation, the potentiality of the lands dealt with in different sale-deeds can not be compared with without difficulty with the lands acquired in the acquisition proceeding giving rise to the present reference. In such a situation, the potentiality of the lands dealt with in different sale-deeds can not be compared with without difficulty with the lands acquired in the acquisition proceeding giving rise to the present reference. I, therefore, find that the sale-deeds placed on the record on the side of the applicants can not be made the basis for determination of compensation of the acquired lands." 13. The learned Court below has dealt with in great detail the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the applicants-claimants and has also came to a same finding. 14. In course of submission, learned counsel for the claimants has not been able to point out the irregularity or point of difference on the finding given in the judgment of the learned Court below about the merit of the evidence given by the witnesses produced on behalf of the applicants-appellants and also the ground on which the learned Court below has scrutinized the documents such as sale-deeds produced on behalf of the applicants-claimants and I fully agree with the findings arrived at by the leaned Court below and I do not find any reason to differ with the findings of the learned Court below. 15. In the result, both these appeals are dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.