ORDER : Heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Sr.S.C.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present First Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.03.2010 passed by Sub-Judge-II, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.3 of 2008 whereby he has rejected Land Acquisition Reference Case No.3 of 2008 and confirmed the compensation amount of Rs.3,52,700/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Authority, Swarna Rekha Project with respect to the building premises. 3. The fact of this appeal lies on the following narrow compass: 4. The land and house premises situated at Mouja/village Putra, P.S. Ghatshila, District-East Singhbhum bearing Plot No.524, under Khata No.32, Thana No.1250 was acquired for Swarna Rekha Project by the Government of Jharkhand. This appellant is happened to be the owner of the said plot. Pursuant to that acquisition an award under section 11 of Land Acquisition Act was drawn up which was numbered as Award No.42 in the name of this appellant for the land appertaining to the above Khata for an area of 0.08 acre of that land for Rs.6,789/-. On that land, a house was also situated and for that a compensation was assessed at Rs.3,52,720/- in the name of the appellant. The appellant received Rs.6,789/- with regard to the land without protest. The appellant received Rs.3,52,720/- for the house with objection and filed objection under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the District Collector cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, East Singhbhum, Swarna Rekha Project, Mango, Jamshedpur and requested him to refer his objection to the competent court for determination of objection raised by this appellant. Pursuant to that, the District Collector cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer, East Singhbhum, Swarna Rekha Project, Mango, Jamshedpur referred the matter to the court and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No.3 of 2008. 5. Mr. S.K. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Reference has been rejected only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He submits that so far the valuation report by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No.9, Ghatshila is concerned that was grossly under-valued and the same does not reflect the basis on which it was prepared. He further submits that fair market value of RCC Roof building measuring 850 sq.ft. is Rs.600/- per square foot. He submits that so far the valuation report by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No.9, Ghatshila is concerned that was grossly under-valued and the same does not reflect the basis on which it was prepared. He further submits that fair market value of RCC Roof building measuring 850 sq.ft. is Rs.600/- per square foot. Whereas, the estimated value in the valuation report of the Executive Engineer was Rs.110.40 paise per square foot. He further submits that so far as the market value of Tiled Roof Shed of IPS Flooring rooms measuring 480 sq.ft. is concerned, it should be as Rs.250/- per sq.ft. He further submits that the appellant has filed a valuation report of Shekhar Bhushan Nag, a Chartered Engineer with regard to the aforesaid property before the court below and the said valuer has assessed the value of the said property at Rs.11,11,500/-. He further submits that this appellant got examined in the court below as A.W.1 and the said Shekhar Bhushan Nag, a Chartered Engineer was examined as witness A.W.2. The said valuation report was exhibited before the court below which was marked as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. He further submits that the court below has not taken into consideration the said valuation report which was already marked, which is illegal. He further submits that so far as the amount of Rs.3,52,720/- is concerned, that was awarded on the basis of the valuation report of the Government under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and being dissatisfied of that award, this appellant filed the Reference and thus, there was no earlier occasion to this appellant to produce the said valuation of A.W.2 which has been rightly filed in the Reference case. He further submits that this appellant has been able to prove his case by way of filing that valuation report before the court below. He further submits that the order of this Court in the case of “Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.” reported in 2009 (1) JCR 125 (Jhar.) has not been considered in right perspective by the court below. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Sr.S.C.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the Reference order of the court below. vs. State of Bihar & Anr.” reported in 2009 (1) JCR 125 (Jhar.) has not been considered in right perspective by the court below. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Sr.S.C.-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the Reference order of the court below. He submits that the entire aspect of the matter has been dealt with in the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 2008. He submits that the court below has taken into consideration that this appellant has not filed any application before the court for appointment of valuer with regard to assessment of the property but suo-motu he has filed that Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 and that is why, the court has rejected that contention of the appellant. Mr. Sinha further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in several judgments that in fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost. He submits that accordingly there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. He further submits that so far as the judgment of this Court in the case of “Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors.” (supra) is concerned, is not applicable in the facts of this case. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and looking into the record, particularly, the Ext.1 and Ext.1/1, this Court finds that there was no occasion to the appellant to file that report earlier in the proceeding under section 11. Only when under section 18 application was filed, which was on the basis of the application of this appellant, then only the appellant was required to prove his case and for proving his case he has filed that Ext.1 and Ext.1/1. The author of Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 was also examined as witness No.A.W.2 who has proved that Exts. Thus, the view taken by the court below cannot be accepted as the application of this appellant was being decided in the year 2008 and he ought to have considered that valuation report. This Court has also held in the case of “Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors.”(supra) that the court below was required to take into consideration the valuation report. Thus, the view taken by the court below cannot be accepted as the application of this appellant was being decided in the year 2008 and he ought to have considered that valuation report. This Court has also held in the case of “Suresh Prasad Singh & Ors.”(supra) that the court below was required to take into consideration the valuation report. Thus, the court below ought not to have discarded the report of the valuation Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 for the purpose of determining the compensation of the house in question. 8. Thus, the matter needs reconsideration by the court below. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award is set-aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the court below for passing a fresh award after considering all the materials available on record. 10. With the above observation and direction, the F.A. No. 104 of 2010 stands disposed of. 11. The Interlocutory Application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.