JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel I appears on behalf of the State and accepts notice and assists this Court. Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr. Pratyush Kumar. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the land looser challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2008 (decree signed on 12.02.2008) passed in Land Reference Case No.11 of 1992 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.42 of 1986-87 (Award No.21). 3. Land of Mouza Bhelatand, Mouza No.89, Khata No.12, District Dhanbad, having an area of 12 decimal belonging to this appellant was acquired in the year 1986-87 by the State for the benefit of respondent No.1. The land was acquired by the State of Bihar for Border Road Organisation, Hirak Project, Dhanbad. After acquisition, the compensation assessed by the Collector, so far as land of this appellant is concerned, was fixed at Rs.292.16 for the entire 12 decimals of land. Land loosers objected such assessment, resulting in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Judge. The Land Acquisition Judge considered the case of this appellant along with other reference cases and thereafter dismissed the reference holding that Rs.292.16 is the correct rate of compensation, which the appellant is entitled to receive. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation assessed is very much low and is not correct market price of the land so acquired. He submits that the appellant has produced the document in support of his claim and he has also adduced oral evidence, but, the Land Acquisition Judge has not considered the document, i.e., Exhibit 1, which supports the claim of the appellant. He submits that Exhibit 1 should have been the basis to assess the correct market value of the land and compensation, accordingly, should have been awarded. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the Land Acquisition Judge has correctly dismissed the reference and on the basis of available materials had correctly held that the appellant is entitled to receive Rs.292.16. 6. Counsel for the Union of India submits that there is no error in the judgment and award passed by the Court. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the Land Acquisition Judge has correctly dismissed the reference and on the basis of available materials had correctly held that the appellant is entitled to receive Rs.292.16. 6. Counsel for the Union of India submits that there is no error in the judgment and award passed by the Court. He submits that the Court has considered oral evidence of all the parties and has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of the compensation. It is not denied that the land was acquired for the benefit of Union of India. 7. After hearing the parties and on going through the records, I find that the main issue is whether the appellant is entitled for compensation at enhanced rate and whether the Land Acquisition Judge has committed an error by not considering the documentary evidence, which has been led by the appellant. 8. It is admitted case that 12 decimals of land has been acquired, which belonged to this appellant. It is admitted that the land, which has been acquired, is within the town of Dhanbad. Five witnesses were produced on behalf of the appellant, namely, A.W.1 Jagarnath Hazra, A.W.2 Sitaram Gope, A.W.3 Gopal Mahato, A.W. 4 Rishi Mahato and A.W.5 Meghu Mahato. A.W.1 Jagarnath Hazra stated that land is adjacent to Barwadda Aerodram and G.T. Road is at a distance of 2 ½ kms. A.W.2 Sitaram Gope exhibited a deed of sale, which is Exhibit 1. A.W.3 Gopal Mahato stated that the land is near the aerodram and near the Mining College and the rate of the land is not less than Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. A.W.4 stated that the land was acquired for the purpose of making road and the acquisition was under protest. He submits that Bhelatand Mouza in Dhanbad Town is at a distance of 2 k.m. A.W.5 Meghu Mahato is also a land looser. He stated that the land was acquired for the purpose of road. He stated that land was Ghora II land and pulses were cultivated. 9. On behalf of the claimants, one document was exhibited, which was marked as Exhibit 1. Said exhibit is a sale deed dated 14th November, 1986. Area covered under the sale deed is 3444 sq.ft. of land in the same mouza, i.e., Bhelatand bearing Mouza No.89 (the same mouza, which the acquired land belongs to). 10. 9. On behalf of the claimants, one document was exhibited, which was marked as Exhibit 1. Said exhibit is a sale deed dated 14th November, 1986. Area covered under the sale deed is 3444 sq.ft. of land in the same mouza, i.e., Bhelatand bearing Mouza No.89 (the same mouza, which the acquired land belongs to). 10. None of the respondents adduced any oral or documental evidence. 11. The Land Acquisition Judge, considering the oral evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the market rate assessed by the Collector, which is Rs.292.16 for acquisition of 12 decimals of land is correct. 12. After going through the judgment and after hearing the parties I find that the Land Acquisition Judge, considered the oral evidence of the witnesses, but, failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence, which is on record. In a case while assessing compensation in lieu of acquisition of land, where there is documentary evidence, which can suggest market price of the land, same should be considered by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. In the entire judgment, learned Land Acquisition Judge has not whispered about the content or relevance of Exhibit, which is a sale deed dated 14th November, 1986. This sale deed is of utmost relevance because of the reason that it relates to the lands of same Mouza, i.e., Mouza No.89. Further the sale deed is prior to the date of declaration of acquisition. The area under the sale deed is 3444 sq. ft. which is 7.9 decimals approximately and the sale value is Rs.6,199/-. The land, which has been acquired in this case, belonging to the appellant is 12 decimals in same Mouza. Thus, this document should be the basis of assessing the market value of the land, which has been acquired, but, this document has not been taken note by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, though the same has been marked as exhibit. 13. When there are sufficient evidence on record, the First Appellate Court can itself decide and can fix the compensation on the basis of the evidence. Since I have held that document, i.e., Exhibit 1, is the best document to assess the market value of the land, thus, I find that the correct market value of the land comes to Rs.785/-per decimal after converting square feet to decimal. Since I have held that document, i.e., Exhibit 1, is the best document to assess the market value of the land, thus, I find that the correct market value of the land comes to Rs.785/-per decimal after converting square feet to decimal. This figure has been arrived at by dividing the sale price of the land in sale deed (Exhibit 1) by the area involved in the sale deed (Exhibit 1). Thus, in view of this Court, the correct market value of the land would be Rs.785/-per decimal, thus, Rs.9,420/-will be for 12 decimals of land. 14. In view of the findings arrived above, I find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly dismissed the reference by holding that Rs.292.16 is correct price of the land and the appellant is entitled to get Rs.292.16. Further, going through the award, I find that neither the solatium nor interest has been awarded to the appellant. Appellant is also entitled to get all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 over and above the above price of land. The appellant is also entitled for litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. 15. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 31st day of January, 2008 passed in L.A. Reference Case No.11 of 1992 is hereby set aside. Fresh award be prepared calculating the price of land, the interest and solatium over and above the cost of the land fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. 16. Thus, this appeal stands allowed.