JUDGMENT Ishan Chandra Das, J. 1. The present appeal originated from a common judgment passed by Ld. L. A. Judge Spl. Court-1 in L. R. A. nos. 115/90(V), 116/90(V), 117/90 (V), 118/90(V) & 120/90 (V) u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The background of the instant appeal is that the appellants of the above-noted reference cases felt themselves aggrieved and dissatisfied with the awards passed by L.A. Collector, 24 Parganas (at present South 24 Parganas) at Alipore, as the concerned L.A. Collector acquired the land in question (i.e. plot no. 4023, 4228 & 4225) for East Calcutta Area Development Project and awarded compensation arbitrarily against each of the appellants in their respective cases, at a low rate, and that prompted them to file the application u/s. 18 of the Act for making reference to court on the following grounds (Which are common in all cases):- (a) That the Collector assessed the valuation of land at a rate which was too low, and thus inadequate and improper compensation was awarded in favour of the appellants/petitioners. According to the appellants compensation should have been assessed @ Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) per cottah. (b) That the assessment of the Collector’s valuation is wrong for vital omission. (c) That the Collector’s award is otherwise wrong in fact and process and ought to be modified. (d) That the referring claimants are entitled to get Statutory Allowance @ 30% & Rental Compensation at the rate of 6% & interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year & 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realization. 3. On the basis of such objection raised by the claimants, those matters were referred to the Land Acquisition Judge in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Learned Land Acquisition Judge upon hearing all concerned and after considering the evidence of both parties, allowed the claims of the Appellants on contest against the Acquisition Authorities (i.e. the L.A. Collector and the K.M.D.A.) by assessing the Market Value of the acquired property @ Rs. 10,000/- per cottah and other incidental benefits as provided by section 23 (1) (A) & (2) of the L.A. Act, 1894 were also granted. 4. 10,000/- per cottah and other incidental benefits as provided by section 23 (1) (A) & (2) of the L.A. Act, 1894 were also granted. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied once again by the order of the L.A. Court, the present appeals have been preferred and since common question of law and fact are involved in these L.A. proceedings, these appeals were heard together. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the findings arrived at by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge in L.R.A. Case no. 115/90 (v) to L.R.A. 118/90 (v) and L.R.A. 120/90(v) and pointed out that Learned Land Acquisition Judge did not take into consideration the judgments passed in other L.A. Cases which had direct bearing on the matter in issue in the present reference cases. By referring to the certified copies of the judgments (Ext.-1 series), he pointed out that several judgments of various courts including two judgments delivered by two different Division Benches of this Court were produced before Learned Land Acquisition Judge in course of hearing, to support his contention that the valuation of the acquired properties of the petitioners was calculated at a much lower price than the market price at which other similarly situated land in the Mouza Kasba was assessed in the other contemporaneous land acquisition proceedings under the same project, but those judgments were not taken into consideration by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge in their proper perspective. He also pointed out with reference to the map of the concerned area (Kasba) in sheet no. 10 (Ext – 3(a)) that the valuation of the property nearer to the plots in question being the subject matter (i.e. plot no. 4210 Mouza Kasba) in L.R.A. Case no. 179/1993 (v) (Ext.-1) was assessed by the Learned Land Acquisition Judge @ Rs. 20,000/- per cottah and the award passed in the said reference was also accepted by the State Respondent. Drawing our further attention to the certified copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court (Ext. 1(a), he confidently urged that in similar circumstances the valuation of plot no. 4202 of Mouza Kasba was assessed by the Hon’ble Division Bench @ Rs. 20,000/- per cottah. 6. Accordingly, he invited to modify the impugned decrees in the same line as it was done in the judgments/decrees in these proceedings being Ext.1 and Ext. 1(a) 7. Mr. L.M. Mahato, Ld. 4202 of Mouza Kasba was assessed by the Hon’ble Division Bench @ Rs. 20,000/- per cottah. 6. Accordingly, he invited to modify the impugned decrees in the same line as it was done in the judgments/decrees in these proceedings being Ext.1 and Ext. 1(a) 7. Mr. L.M. Mahato, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/State of West Bengal in course of his argument supported the findings of Ld. Trial Judge. He urged that the valuation of the property in question would be much less than Rs. 20,000/- per cottah. He ultimately prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs. 8. Ld. Advocate representing the K.M.D.A. also advanced similar argument opposing the prayer of the appellants but left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 9. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, it is revealed that the properties in question (being the subject matter of the five L.A. proceedings involved in the present appeal), as referred to earlier, were acquired for the East Calcutta Area Development Project. The map of Mouza ‘Kasba’ in sheet no 10 (Ext.- 3(a) reflected that the plot nos. 4202 & 4210 (nearer to the plots in question in the same Mouza and category of such plots being ‘Sali’ land), were acquired in different proceedings for the identical purpose i.e. for the East Calcutta Area Development Project. We cannot over look the fact that in L.A. Case no 179/93(v) (Ext.-1) the valuation of the property (i.e. plot no. 4210 which finds place in sheet no 10 of Kasba Mouza) was assessed @ Rs. 20,000/- per cottah in respect of ‘Sali’ land. Valuation of an identical plot no. 4202 being a ‘Sali’ class of land was assessed by a Division Bench of this Court (Ext. - 1(a)) @ Rs.20,000/- per cottah and such valuation was accepted by the state/respondent. It is not in dispute that all the plots in question were agricultural land (Sali). Now, we may place a table showing particulars of the appellant’s land acquired by the State Respondent, land which is given below – (F.A. 154-158 of 2010). - 1(a)) @ Rs.20,000/- per cottah and such valuation was accepted by the state/respondent. It is not in dispute that all the plots in question were agricultural land (Sali). Now, we may place a table showing particulars of the appellant’s land acquired by the State Respondent, land which is given below – (F.A. 154-158 of 2010). Case No. Acquired Plots Title of Appellants Nature Area in acres Mouza Sheet No. L.R.A.120 4023 Co-owners Sali 0.40 Kasba 10 Of 1990 (v) 4228 “ “ 1.33 Kasba 10 4245 “ “ 0.69 Kasba 10 (F.A. No. 154 of 2010) L.R.A.118 4023 Co-owners Sali 0.40 Kasba 10 Of 1990 (v) 4228 “ “ 1.33 Kasba 10 4245 “ “ 0.69 Kasba 10 (F.A. No. 155 of 2010) L.R.A.117 4023 Co-owners Sali 0.40 Kasba 10 Of 1990 (v) 4228 “ “ 1.33 Kasba 10 4245 “ “ 0.69 Kasba 10 (F.A. No. 156 of 2010) L.R.A.116 4023 Co-owners Sali 0.40 Kasba 10 Of 1990 (v) 4228 “ “ 1.33 Kasba 10 4245 “ “ 0.69 Kasba 10 (F.A. No. 157 of 2010) L.R.A.115 4023 Co-owners Sali 0.40 Kasba 10 Of 1990 (v) 4228 “ “ 1.33 Kasba 10 4245 “ “ 0.69 Kasba 10 (F.A. No. 158 of 2010) 10. Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in computing the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per cottah in the instant case. 11. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no land can be acquired by the Government without payment of compensation to the land loser. Such compensation is payable at the market rate of the acquired land prevalent at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the said Act. The mode of computation of such compensation is prescribed under Section 23 of the said Act. Amongst various considerations mentioned therein, first and foremost consideration is to decide the market value of the land at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-Section 1 thereof. 12. The appellants claimed that the price of the said land at the relevant time was Rs.50,000.00 per Cottah. Amongst various considerations mentioned therein, first and foremost consideration is to decide the market value of the land at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-Section 1 thereof. 12. The appellants claimed that the price of the said land at the relevant time was Rs.50,000.00 per Cottah. To substantiate such claim, the appellant produced various judicial pronouncements of several Courts including the Division Bench judgment of this Hon’ble Court to show that the price of similarly situated land during the material period was assessed at a much higher rate than the rate at which the valuation of the appellants’ property was calculated. Those documents were admitted into evidence without any objection and were marked as Ext. 1(a), Ext. 1 (b), Ext. 1(c) series, Ext. 1(d) series and Ext. 2. Apart from those documents, the Mouja Map was also admitted into evidence being Ext. 3 without any objection. 13. Exception was taken by the State Respondent as the appellants did not adduce any oral evidence to support their claim regarding valuation of those four plots of land during the relevant period. According to the State Respondents, the appellants having been failed to adduce any oral evidence in support of their claim in the said proceeding, the Learned Land Acquisition Judge ought to have rejected the said reference case. 14. Let us now consider as to whether any fatal was caused due to not giving any oral evidence by the appellants in the said proceeding. On perusal of the records we find that though oral evidence was not adduced by the appellants but documentary evidence such as several judicial pronouncements dealing with an identical issue regarding valuation of similarly situated plot, were admitted into evidence at the instance of the appellants without any objection from the side of the State Respondents. 15. Judgment and decree of the court are public documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Thus, we hold that certified copies of those documents granted under Section 76 of the said Act are admissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. We thus, hold that the Learned land Acquisition Judge did not commit any illegality in admitting those documents into evidence. Even the admissibility of the said document has not been challenged by the State respondents herein. We thus, hold that the Learned land Acquisition Judge did not commit any illegality in admitting those documents into evidence. Even the admissibility of the said document has not been challenged by the State respondents herein. As such we hold that the court can very well consider and/or assess the evidential value of those documents. 16. On perusal of those documentary evidence it appears that an identical dispute regarding the market price of similarly situated plots within sheet No. 10 which were acquired in the contemporaneous land acquisition proceeding under the same project was resolved by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in an appeal being F.A No.243 of 1991, being Ext. 1(a) wherein it was declared that the assessment of the valuation of the land in question made by the Learned Trial Judge @ Rs.6,625/- per cottah was too low with a rider that the proper valuation of the acquired land should have been assessed at Rs.20,000/- per cottah. Accordingly, direction was given upon the concerned Land Acquisition Authority for assessment of the compensation of the said acquired land in the light of the said judgment and decree passed in the said appeal. 17. Similarly in another reference case arising out of a Land Acquisition Proceeding being L.R.A Case No.179 of 1993 being Ext. 1, we find that the Learned Land Acquisition Judge held that the market price of an identical plot of land within sheet No.10 should have been determined by accepting the market price thereof as Rs.20,000/- per cottah. 18. There is nothing on record to show that those judicial pronouncements were not subsequently maintained in the further appeal. 19. It is worth mentioning here that apart from those judicial pronouncements, the appellants also proved the Mouja Map to show that the acquired lands which were subject matter of those judicial proceedings were situated near to the appellants’ plots which were acquired in the instant land acquisition proceeding. As a matter of fact, for the purpose of identifying plots and/or for determination of valuation of the acquired plots with reference to their respective situation, several map sheets were prepared by the concerned authority. As a matter of fact, for the purpose of identifying plots and/or for determination of valuation of the acquired plots with reference to their respective situation, several map sheets were prepared by the concerned authority. If the concerned map sheet being sheet No.10 is considered then we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants’ lands which were acquired by the State Respondents were also included in the map sheet No.10 wherein the other plots, which were subject matter of consideration in the other judicial proceedings, as referred to above were included. As such we can hold that the lands of the appellants were similarly situated with the land which were the subject matter of consideration in those judicial proceedings being Ext. 1 and Ext. 1(a) and thus, we can safely rely upon those decisions for assessing the market price of the appellants’ land in the present case. 20. Thus relying upon those judicial pronouncements, and accepting the same as a guideline for assessment of compensation for the acquired land of the appellant, we proceed to decide the present appeal, by holding that the market price of the acquired land of the appellants should be accepted as Rs.20,000/- per cottah in the present case. 21. Of course, the respondents also submitted several documents in the said proceeding and those were also admitted into evidence but on perusal of those documentary evidence we find that excepting one sale deed, all other sale deeds which were relied upon by the concerned authority for assessing the valuation of different plots of land acquired in the said proceeding, relate to differently situated plots of land and those were included either in sheet No.7 and/or in sheet No. 9. 22. When judicial pronouncements on identical issue relating to similarly situated plots within sheet No.10 are available to us, we feel it safe to rely upon such judicial pronouncements than to rely upon the deed produced by the State Respondents relating to a transaction between two private individuals, particularly when the parties to the said document were not examined in the said proceeding and the appellants did not get an opportunity to cross examine them on the issue regarding the actual consideration passed for such transaction. Since the other documents relate to some other plots of land which were not included in sheet No.10, we do not find any justification to rely upon those documents for assessing the market value of the appellants’ land in the present case, as the Respondent’s own witness admitted in his evidence that the valuation of the land included in sheet No. 10, are not identical with the valuation of the land included in sheet No. 7 23. In the facts of the circumstances, as stated above, we by relying upon those judicial pronouncements for Ext. 1 and 1(a) hold that the compensation in the present case for acquiring those four plots of the appellants’ land ought to have been assessed by accepting the market value thereof at Rs.20,000/- per cottah. 24. In the result the appeals succeed, as indicated above. The Judgments & Decrees of Learned Land Acquisition Judge which are under challenge in these appeals are modified accordingly. The appellants are entitled to have valuation of the plots in question @ Rs. 20,000/- per cottah along with statutory allowance i.e. solatium @ 30% on the land value plus additional Compensation @ 12% per annum on the land value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-Section (1) of the said Act in respect of the petitioner’s land upto the date of the award of the collector. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the entire compensation (i.e. land value, Statutory Allowance & Addl. Compensation for one year from the date of publication of notice and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of realization but the entire claim is subject to adjustment with the amount already paid to the claimants if any. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. 25. The State respondent are thus, directed to deposit the awarded compensation in the light of the judgment passed hereinabove in the Court below within two months from date, failing which the appellants will be at liberty to realize this awarded compensation by executing the decrees in accordance with the law. I agree. Appeals succeed.