JUDGMENT: Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.-Mr. Mehta, appearing for the appellant, in support of the appeal, submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 5,369.40, which has been enhanced by the learned Land Acquisition Judge (L.A. Judge) to Rs. 2,05,200/- without any basis. He further submitted that the learned L.A. Judge should have passed order on the basis of the rate report (Ext. C); and that the rate @ Rs. 1200 per decimal is not based on any evidence produced by the applicants. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Debi Prasad, appearing for the respondents, submitted that Ext. C has been rightly rejected by L.A. Judge. He further submitted that against 1.71 acres of land acquired only Rs. 5,369.40 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which has been rightly enhanced by the learned LA Judge. 3. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the rate fixed by the learned L.A. Judge needs interference or not. 4. From Ext. C, it appears that on the basis of the agricultural produce, the rates of different lands were recommended. Moreover, the person who prepared the said rate report was not examined in the case. The learned L.A. Judge has rightly held that such ate report was not admissible in evidence and it cannot be relied upon because it does not reflect about the actual valuation of the land of Mouza Dobari in question. 5. It has been further held by the learned L.A. Judge that so far as the classification of the land is concerned, the entaes made in the Cadestral Survey prepared in the year 1925 were sought to be relied upon without taking into consideration that after lapse of about seventy years, there has been massive change in the classification of land of Dhanbad District. It has also come in evidence that several new establishments, bunglows and industries have been installed in the vicinity of the acquired land. The learned L.A. Judge has found that the opposite parties appellants have failed to classify the land at the time of notification for acquisition and they have not fixed the proper valuation of the land in question. 6. In the circumstances, there was no other option before the learned L.A. Judge than to rely on sale deeds Exts. 1 and 1/A produced on behalf of the applicants-respondents to show that in the adjoining Village-Fatehpur, the rate of land was Rs. 6. In the circumstances, there was no other option before the learned L.A. Judge than to rely on sale deeds Exts. 1 and 1/A produced on behalf of the applicants-respondents to show that in the adjoining Village-Fatehpur, the rate of land was Rs. 10,0001- per decimal with structure thereon at the relevant time. The learned L.A. Judge on taking into consideration the entire evidence on record has held that the price of the land under acquisition will not be less than Rs. 1,200/per decimal during the relevant period which is moderate one. 7. After carefully perusing the materials on record, I find that no ground has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, this First Appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.