MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–Heard learned counsel Mr. Gopal Jee for the cross-objector and the learned counsel for the State on the Interlocutory Application No.5718 of 2014. 2. In view of the statements made in the said interlocutory application it is allowed and in place of Mahanth Ram Nath Tripathy, who died, the present Mahanth, namely, Onkar Nath Tripathy is added as party in the cross-objection. 3. It appears that by the impugned award many claim cases have been disposed of. The State of Bihar filed various first appeals against the impugned judgment and award. In the present case the house of the respondent was acquired by the State of Bihar. The Collector awarded Rs.15,165/-. The respondent filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement. One engineer was appointed by the land owners for assessment of value of the house of the land owners/house owners. The owner produced his report (Ext.E/m) in the land acquisition case whereby the engineer assessed the value of the house of respondent at Rs.54,999/-. By the impugned judgment and award the learned Land Acquisition Judge reduced the valuation by 50 per cent and awarded Rs.27,499.50 only. 4. The State of Bihar has filed this first appeal against this award before this Court. 5. It appears that in view of the State Government Notification No.2618 dated 10.11.2006 whereby the State Government decided not to pursue the appeals the valuation whereof is less than Rs.50,000/- the State of Bihar got the first appeals withdrawn by terms of order dated 10.11.2006. Since the cross-objection filed by the claimant-respondent was admitted on 21st July, 1983, the said cross-objection has been listed for hearing. 6. At the time of hearing of this cross objection, the learned counsel Mr. Gopal Jee submitted that earlier the First Appeals were being heard by Division Bench. Out of many land acquisition cases decided by this common impugned judgment, some of the claimants filed first appeals before the High Court. One claimant Smt. Urmila Devi filed First Appeal No.807 of 1976, which was heard by Division Bench of this Court and was disposed of by judgment dated 07.08.1981 holding that “it is not the case of the State that the valuation given by the engineer is exaggerated valuation. One claimant Smt. Urmila Devi filed First Appeal No.807 of 1976, which was heard by Division Bench of this Court and was disposed of by judgment dated 07.08.1981 holding that “it is not the case of the State that the valuation given by the engineer is exaggerated valuation. We, therefore, hold that the Land Acquisition Judge has erred in deducting 50% of the valuation given by the engineer as the deduction is not supported by any evidence on record. Hence, we accept the evidence of the engineer as well as his report (Ext.3)” and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar-appellant did not dispute this fact. 8. From perusal of the Division Bench judgment it appears that the Division Bench has accepted the report of the engineer. The engineer had given the report with respect to the house involved in the land acquisition cases. In all the reference cases the Land Acquisition Judge accepted the report of the engineer. However, the Land Acquisition Judge awarded only 50 per cent of the report of the engineer without assigning any reason. Therefore, the Division Bench has accepted the report of the engineer and set aside the award of the Land Acquisition Judge holding that without there being any case of exaggerated valuation by the engineer pleaded by the State of Bihar without rhyme and reason the Land Acquisition judge has wrongly reduced the valuation. 9. In view of this fact the matter regarding the valuation has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court. It further appears that following the decision of the Division Bench this Court also in First Appeal No.175 of 1977 set aside the award of the house owner in that case, i.e. in Land Acquisition Case No.369 of 1973, which was also decided by the impugned judgment. 10. The only question raised by the cross-objector is with respect to the assessment of valuation by the engineer, which has been reduced by 50 per cent by the Land Acquisition Judge. The learned counsel Mr. 10. The only question raised by the cross-objector is with respect to the assessment of valuation by the engineer, which has been reduced by 50 per cent by the Land Acquisition Judge. The learned counsel Mr. Gopal Jee appearing on behalf of the cross-objector submitted that in the present case also without any rhyme and reason the court below has reduced the valuation, therefore, award be set aside and after allowing the cross-objection the award may be passed to the effect that the claimant-cross-objector is entitled to the amount fixed by the engineer in his report. 11. From perusal of the impugned judgment at paragraph 14 it appears that in the present case the engineer fixed the valuation of the house acquired at Rs.54,999/- which has been reduced by the Land Acquisition Judge without assigning any reason. Therefore, award passed by the court below with respect to the claimant-cross-objector is hereby set aside. The report valuing the building of the of the claimant-cross-objector at Rs.54,999/- is accepted and held that the claimant-cross-objector is entitled to the said amount for his building acquired by the State of Bihar. 12. In the result, the cross-objection is allowed and the valuation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-I, Patna in the impugned judgment and award with respect to the claimant-cross-objector is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost. ?