JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellants against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, cum- Special Judge of LR case, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case No. 18/1990 whereby and whereunder, learned court below enhanced the compensation by holding that the petitioner is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,12,500/- under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being the actual price of the land @ Rs. 2,500/- per decimal besides interest and solatium @ 30% on the price of the land and also held that the petitioner is entitled to 9% interest on excess amount from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of the actual payment of the first year and after first year, the petitioner shall be entitled to get 15% of the excess amount on the date of the payment. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that for the purpose of construction and expansion of national highway, land was acquired for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 01.03.1988 vide land acquisition case no. 12/85-86. Out of the total area of 1.39 acres of land, for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was published and an area of 0.85 acres of land under the village Naisarai, Thana No. 145, under Mandu P.S., Pargana-Jagesar under Khata no. 1 and plot no. 20 belonged to the petitioner-appellant. In respect of acquisition of the said land vide award no. 1, a sum of Rs. 85,000/- and other benefits in total Rs. 1,16,450/- was awarded to the original petitioner- Sri Jag Narain Singh. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, the original appellant-petitioner filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31.03.1989 and based on which, Land Reference case No. 18 of 1990 was referred for adjudication of the proper market value of the said acquired land. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the acquired land is situated in the heart of Ramgarh town, by the side of Patna-Ranchi National Highway and besides this, the acquired land is having commercial value. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the acquired land is situated in the heart of Ramgarh town, by the side of Patna-Ranchi National Highway and besides this, the acquired land is having commercial value. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the commercial and residential potentiality of the acquired land has not been considered while assessing the compensation amount and the value of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 20,000/- per decimal. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was intending to set up a small factory on the acquired land but because of the acquisition of the land, the petitioner became jobless. The petitioner further pleaded that because of the acquisition, the petitioner has been compelled to change his residence and place of business incurring huge expenditure. Hence, the petitioner prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 6. The State-opposite party though did not file any written statement yet filed certain documents and also examined the witnesses in support of the fact that proper compensation has been awarded. 7. In support of its case, the petitioner examined three witnesses including the petitioner himself and proved certain sale deeds of the year 1993 and 2003. The State also proved the order-sheet L.A. case No. 12 /85-86, marked as exhibit A, valuation khatiyan marked as Exhibit B and sale figures marked as Exhibit C. 8. Learned court below after taking into consideration of the evidence in the record, both oral and documentary, made the said enhancement in the compensation, as already indicated above. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned court below could not properly appreciate the evidence in the record and committed grave error of law and traversed beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act and without any written statement of Collector with respect to the Land Acquisition, learned trial court proceeded to determine the valuation of land and fixed an erroneous compensation. It is further submitted that in absence of any written statement filed by opposite party-State, learned court below ought not to have considered the evidence put forth by the opposite party-State. It is further submitted that keeping in view the material evidence in the record, learned court below ought to have assessed the value of the land @ Rs. It is further submitted that in absence of any written statement filed by opposite party-State, learned court below ought not to have considered the evidence put forth by the opposite party-State. It is further submitted that keeping in view the material evidence in the record, learned court below ought to have assessed the value of the land @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal and it failed to take note of the fact that for the same plot of land in L.R. case no. 6 of 88 through an award dated 12.04.2005, a compensation @ Rs. 7,000/- per decimal was allowed. It is further submitted that learned court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper prospective, hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2005 by learned court below be set aside. 10. Mr. V.K. Prasad the learned counsel for the State on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submitted that learned court below taking into consideration the evidence and materials in record has rightly assessed the compensation @ Rs. 2,500/- per decimal and hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard submissions made at the bar and perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether learned court below was proper in assessing the compensation in respect of the acquired land?” Out of the three witnesses examined by the petitioner, AW1 – is the original petitioner himself. He has stated that the price of the acquired land was Rs. 20,000/- per decimal. Over the acquired land, 04 Neem trees, 01 big Tamarind tree were standing and over the said land, four rooms constructed by him with tin roof also existed. The worth of the trees was Rs. 50,000/- and value of the house was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said acquired land is in the town and in the heart of the commercial place; hence, the acquired land could have been used for business of any kind. Near the acquired land, the rest-house of CCL, colonies, hospital, school is also situated and Ramgarh police station is also near the acquired land, hence, the acquired land is a highly valuable piece of land. Near the acquired land, the rest-house of CCL, colonies, hospital, school is also situated and Ramgarh police station is also near the acquired land, hence, the acquired land is a highly valuable piece of land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he mentioned about the trees and house in his objection at the time of receiving compensation amount and also, mentioned the value and dimension of the house. He denied the suggestion that no house and trees was existing over the acquired land. Lands have been sold @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal near his land but he cannot produce the sale deed of any of the lands. AW2- Rameshwar Sao has stated that he purchased 02 decimals of land of Mauja- Naisarai, Thana no. 145 under Mandu police station from Sri Jag Narain Singh in the year 1993 for Rs. 20,000/- and has been residing over the said land after constructing house thereon. The land which was purchased by him was part of the land, out of which 85 decimals of land of Jag Narain Singh has been acquired for construction of the bridge. Five trees were also there, and tin roofed house also existing on the said acquired land. The value of the acquired land is Rs. 50,000/- per decimal. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say the area of the land of plot no. 20. He prepared the map of the house in the year 1994-95. AW3- Ramesh Ram, has stated that on 03.12.2003, he purchased 10 ½ decimals of land of Mauza Nai Sarai for Rs. 1,75,000/- and he has been residing thereon after constructing a house. The land of the petitioner-appellant is near that land of AW3, which has been acquired for construction of the Ramgarh bridge. The land of the petitioner-appellant was at distance of 150 yards from the land of AW3. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has only filed Xerox copy of the sale deed of the land of 10 ½ decimals and the original sale deed is in the bank. AW4- Suresh Singh has stated that in the year 2003, he purchased land from Vijay Pratap Singh having an area of 4.90 decimals @ Rs. 98,000/- and is residing on the said land after constructing house thereon. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has filed photocopy of the sale deed and not the original. AW4- Suresh Singh has stated that in the year 2003, he purchased land from Vijay Pratap Singh having an area of 4.90 decimals @ Rs. 98,000/- and is residing on the said land after constructing house thereon. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has filed photocopy of the sale deed and not the original. From the side of the opposite party-State, OPW1- Johan Beck is the Amin of Land Acquisition office. He has stated that he has seen the acquired land, which was acquired for construction of the aforesaid road. The acquired land was at a depth of 20 feet below the road. No cultivation was done on that land. On being proved by him, the Exhibit A, B and C were marked as exhibits. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember how much land of the petitioner- appellant has been acquired. On perusal of the records, I find that there is neither any evidence nor any pleading regarding trees with its girth, height and age etc. The original petitioner has not adduced any evidence to the effect that he had to change his residence and his place of business because of the acquisition of the land. In paragraph 16, AW1 has categorically deposed that the acquired land is at a depth of about 15 feet from the bridge, thus, indicating that the acquired land was a low-lying land. Though the AW2 has stated about the sale transaction in the year 1993 that is about five years after the notification for acquisition yet he did not prove the sale deed. It is a settled principle of law that the sale deeds executed after the acquisition, is of not much importance for determining the value of the acquired land. The petitioner could not prove any document in support of his claim that the prevailing rate of the acquired land at and about the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was Rs. 20,000/- per decimal. The perusal of Exhibit A, which is the order sheet shows that the sale figure at Sl. No. 10 indicated that price for Tand I land was @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Learned court below has considered the fact that for a similarly situated land, compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre has been awarded by learned lower court in L.R. Case No. 19 of 90. No. 10 indicated that price for Tand I land was @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. Learned court below has considered the fact that for a similarly situated land, compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre has been awarded by learned lower court in L.R. Case No. 19 of 90. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner-appellants have failed to put forth any cogent evidence regarding the existence of trees or house over the acquired land by mentioning its dimension or any other detailed description and in absence of any documentary evidence regarding contention of the petitioner that the adjacent lands were sold @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal as claimed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that proper market value of acquired land on the date of notification should be Rs. 2,500/- per decimal, hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, cum- Special Judge, of LR Case, Hazaribagh in Land Reference Case No. 18/1990, hence, the same is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. 13. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.