JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and Award passed by the Land Acquisition
Judge, Bokaro at Chas whereby he has disposed of 30 reference cases filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.
2. It appears that notification for acquisition of 92.67 acres of land in Mouza Dugda and Dursera village within Dugada P.S. was issued on 16.6.1981 and subsequently awards were made under different awards and communicated to the claimants. The claimants received awarded compensation under protest and preferred application under Section 19 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimants is that the land acquired for the Dugda Coal Washery are not properly classified and no compensation according to market value of the land has been paid to them. According to the claimants, acquired lands are paddy lands and are fit to be used for residential, industrial and other commercial purposes. There are several residential houses of colony of M/s BCC Ltd. and Dugda Coal Washery. Further case of the claimants was that the lands are connected with Pucca Road and the electricity is also available by the side of the lands. Schools, Colleges, Hospital and other organizations are situated very near to the acquired lands. The claimants therefore claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per decimal.
3. The case of the appellant-State of Bihar and M/s BCC Ltd. as-State of Bihar and M/s BCC Ltd. as per their rejoinder is that the lands acquired are waste lands and barren lands and situated near Damodar river and all the lands are not paddy lands rather portion of the lands are paddy lands and rest are Tand and Gair Mazarua Aam Lands.
4. The claimants proved two sale deeds dated 11.10.1980 (Ext. 1 and 1/A) in support of their case that two decimals of land alongwith house was sold at Rs. 6000/-. The claimants also adduced oral evidence by examining five witnesses in order to show that the acquired lands are 1st class Bahal lands and it has got potential to produce crops. The appellant/State filed carbon copy of rate report dated 30.1.1985 (Ext. ‘C’) sale chart of village Bursera (Ext. ‘D’) and sale chart of village
Dugda (Ext. D/1). The appellant also examined one witness namely, Ramji Mishra, Kanungo of the District Land Acquisition Office, Chas, Bokaro.
5. The Land Acquisition Judge (in short Court below) disagreeing with Ext. A and A/1 held that the same are not admissible into evidence. The Court below further held that Ext. D and D/1, sale chart also can not be relied upon as the same are inadmissible into evidence, Relying upon the evidence of the claimants’ witnesses and the two sale deeds Ext. 1 and 1/A the Court below assessed the value of entire land at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per decimal.
6. I have heard Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned SC II appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. From perusal of Ext. ‘C’, which is rate report prepared on the basis of sale chart (Ext. D/1 and D/2), it will appear that the nature of the land has been categorically classified. Out of total acquired lands measuring 92.67 acres Dhan 1 land 8.51 acres, Dhan 2 land 57.3 acres, Dhan 3 lands 0.68 acres, Tand 2 lands 21.43 acres Tand 3 land 3.62 acres and Gairmazarua Aam land 1.12 acres. This rate report and sale chart have been proved and marked Ext. ‘C’, Ext. D and D/l. These documents have been proved by O.P.W. 1 Ramji Mish-ra, Kanungo, Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro. From perusal of his deposition, it appears that when these documents were proved and marked Ext., no objection was raised by the claimants regarding admis-sibility of these documents. Even no suggestion was given while examining this witness that those documents are not authentic documents. In such circumstances when a document was proved by a witness in accordance with law and was marked Ext. without objection the Court below was in grave error of law in saying that these documents are inadmissible into evidence. Consequently finding of the Court below that the appellants have not produced any documents to show the classification of lands in perverse in law.
8. As noticed above, from perusal of Ext. C.D. and D/l, it appears that the entire lands are not either paddy lands or
waste lands. The Court below put heavy reliance on two sale deeds whereby two decimals of lan
