B. N. KIRPAL, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of First appeal Nos. 299/94 to 307/94 which relate to acquisition of land for public purpose, namely erection of flats by the Gujarat Housing Board, near Broach town Notification under Section 4 for acquiring about 29 hectares of land was issued on 1-1-1981, which was followed by notification under Section 6 on 7-12- 1983. ( 2 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 22nd September 1989. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square metre for lands adjoining pucca road; Rs. 12/- per square metre for lands adjoining village narrow road and water channel; Rs. 10/- per square metre for the lands having no entrance and Re. 1/- per square metre for wastelands. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made, wherein the claimants led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. The appellants herein as well as the gujarat Housing Board did not take the trouble of leading any documentary evidence. Curiously enough, even the instances which were relied upon by the land Acquisition Collector in determining the compensation were not tendered Vide judgment dated 26th february 1993, the Extra Assistant Judge, broach, referred to the following placed on record by the claimants: documentary evidence, which had been Sr. No. Exh. Nos. Sr. No. Area Total price Date of Transfer Remarks 1. 17 80/1 49,800 19-2-82 Copy of 1245/sq. metres 2. 18 8-27 Mt. 54,551 16-5-83 3. 19 33 45,000 18-7-85 900 sq. mtr. 4. 20 900 mt 37,510 23-11-79 Sale-deed 5. 36 Plt 35,000 26-3-79 Index A/1/4 56. 6 sq. m. 6. 37 Plot No. A/2 35,000 27-3-79 56 sq. mt. 7. 38 Plot No. 4 18,999 1-1-81 24. 95 sq. mtr. 8. 39 S. No. 15657 9,000 29-6-82 B-17 16. 23. 81 sq. mtr. 9. 31 40 41,500 27-6-84 Sale-deed 206. 24 sq. mtr. 10. 32 Survey Nos. 5 201,512 17-12-86 Plot No. 3 to 5 992. 61 sq. mtr. 11. 33 S. No. 13/1 12,698 11-8-86 Sale-deed 13/2 paiki plot No. 15 - B 158-72 sq. mtr the said documentary evidence was however, rejected by the Extra Assistant judge by observing that the instances shown at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were only copies of the index. 61 sq. mtr. 11. 33 S. No. 13/1 12,698 11-8-86 Sale-deed 13/2 paiki plot No. 15 - B 158-72 sq. mtr the said documentary evidence was however, rejected by the Extra Assistant judge by observing that the instances shown at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were only copies of the index. In respect of sale instances shown at Serial Nos. 4, 10 and 11, the seller and purchaser had not been examined. Furthermore, the sales had taken place long after the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. With regard to the instance at Serial No. 9, the Court observed that the sale took place after about three and a half years of Section 4 notification and therefore, could not be relied upon. He further took into consideration the evidence of Shri R. B. Patel, who was the purchaser of the plot of the registered sale-deed Ex. 31 and noticed that it had been deposed that the said plot was a developed one and was touching the road and had all the facilities like road, water, etc. ( 4 ) THE Extra Assistant Judge, however, observed that as the lands under acquisition was situated adjoining to each other, in his view the wastelands situated in the front side may fetch higher price. He, therefore, concluded that there should be a uniform rate for the entire land which had been acquired. Having rejected the instances, which had been relied upon by the claimants and in the absence of any evidence by the appellants herein, the Extra Assistant Judge observed as follows while awarding Rs. 80/- per square metre as compensation. "looking to the situation of the lands, the location of the lands, and the purpose for which the lands are acquired, the nearness to developed area, it can also be said that the lands have some building potentiality. At the most, it can be said that the lands, because of subsequent development in nearby locality, possess some distant building potentiality. I, therefore, hold that the compensation award by the Special Land Acquisition officer is unadequate. Sometime, it is not possible to assess the exact market value of the lands under acquisition at the relevant time. For estimation of the market value, court has to enter the field of a conjecture or guess. I, therefore, hold that the compensation award by the Special Land Acquisition officer is unadequate. Sometime, it is not possible to assess the exact market value of the lands under acquisition at the relevant time. For estimation of the market value, court has to enter the field of a conjecture or guess. After considering the different factors mentioned above, I considering the different factors mentioned above, assess the market value of the lands under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. " ( 5 ) IN our opinion, the judgment of the extra Assistant Judge suffers from some serious infirmities. It is not in dispute that when the notification under Section 4 was issued in 1st January 1981, the lands which were acquired were agricultural. It is in evidence that the lands were being used for agricultural purposes and the said lands were, at that time, out side the municipal limits of Broach. Even if it is admitted that the Railway Station and the other big factories were not too far away from these lands, one cannot lose sight of the fact that at the relevant time the lands were not non-agricultural. ( 6 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector had placed the lands which were acquired in to four different categories. The Extra assistant Judge, however, did not accept this principle because in his view, the entire lands were going to be and as the lands were to be used for same purpose, according to him, all the lands should have the same value. In our opinion, the categorisation of land, in the manner in which it was done by the Land acquisition Collector was valid and was in keeping with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan - JT 1993 (6) S. C. 1 23. In the present case it is difficult to comprehend that the price of wasteland on the date of Section 4 notification would be the same as the price of other lands which had a much better location. Lands which were adjoining to pucca road obviously must be having a higher value than the other lands. In our opinion therefore, the Extra assistant Judge was wrong in not accepting the classification of land as done by the Land Acquisition Collector. Lands which were adjoining to pucca road obviously must be having a higher value than the other lands. In our opinion therefore, the Extra assistant Judge was wrong in not accepting the classification of land as done by the Land Acquisition Collector. ( 7 ) COMING to the valuation of the lands in question, the Extra Assistant Judge has obviously resorted to guesswork as is apparent from the relevant passage of the judgment, which has been cited by us hereinabove. No reason or basis has been indicated as to how the price of land has been determined at Rs. 80/- per square metre. ( 8 ) IT is true that best evidence for arriving at the market value of the land as on the date of Section 4 notification was not available. In the absence thereof, certain amount of guesswork has necessarily to be resorted to. This was so observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Sing v. Union of India - (1993) 3 S. C. C. 240. It was mentioned that "but certainly the facts of these cases would assist us to assess a fair and reasonable compensation in fixing the market value though an amount of guesswork is involved. We are conscious of the fact that it should not be founded on feats of imagination hedged with undue emphasis of compulsory deprivation of the possession of the land of the appellants, for the exercise of states power of eminent domain, statutory solatium is the premium the state pays. . . . " ( 9 ) APPROACHING the problem with the aforesaid principle in mind, let us examine the documentary evidence produced by the claimants themselves. Out of the eleven documents filed only three relate to the period prior to 1st january 1981. Out of these, one at Serial nos. 5 and 6 can be rejected not only on the ground that they happen to be mere copy of the index, but also for the reason that the sizes of the plots in question were only about 56 sq. mtrs. each. Instances of sale of such small areas cannot be regards as a good guidance while determining the compensation of an area of nearly 29 hectares. The instance Ex. 20 was a sale- deed of 900 sq. mtrs at the rate of about rs. 41/- per square metre. mtrs. each. Instances of sale of such small areas cannot be regards as a good guidance while determining the compensation of an area of nearly 29 hectares. The instance Ex. 20 was a sale- deed of 900 sq. mtrs at the rate of about rs. 41/- per square metre. This also appears to be of a developed land. Another instance of larger plot of land is of Ex. 17, which had an area of 1245 sq. mtrs. and the date of transfer was 19-2-82 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square metre. It will be evident from above the prices between the year 1977- 1982 in that area were more or less stable and on the contrary, there was a slight fall in the price of land if the area was bigger. The price of 900 square metres of land in november 1979 was Rs. 41/- per square metre, whereas the price of 1245 sq. mtrs of land in Feb. 1982 was Rs. 40/- per square metre. We are not aware of more particulars and the situation of these plots, but they appear to be in a developed colony. ( 10 ) RATHER than to resort to mere guesswork, it would be more appropriate, in our opinion, to rely upon Ex. 17 and Ex. 20 in order to find a fair market value of the land in question. As has already been noticed, the Land Acquisition Collector had given Rs. 15/- per square metre as compensation in respect of lands which were adjoining a pucca road. Such lands could easily be regarded as developed lands and compensation would, in our opinion, be similar to the price of lands represented by Ex. 17 and Ex. 20. The fair price of lands, taking all the circumstances into consideration and keeping in mind the fact that the acquired lands were at a distance from the lands which are covered by Ex. 17 and Ex. 20, the market value of the lands adjoining the road should be Rs. 40/- per square metre. For the lands adjoining narrow road and the water channel for which Rs. 12/- per square metre was awarded by the land Acquisition Officer, we feel that the fair market value would be Rs. 35/- per square metre. For the third category of land which had no entrance, the fair market value would be Rs. 30/- per square metre. For the lands adjoining narrow road and the water channel for which Rs. 12/- per square metre was awarded by the land Acquisition Officer, we feel that the fair market value would be Rs. 35/- per square metre. For the third category of land which had no entrance, the fair market value would be Rs. 30/- per square metre. In respect of wasteland the value should not be more than Rs. 30/- per square metre. ( 11 ) WE accordingly partly allow these appeals and reduce the compensation from 80 rupees per square metre to Rs. 40/- per square metre, Rs. 35/- per square metre, Rs. 30/- per square metre and Rs. 20/- per square metre in respect of those categories of lands for which the Land acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 15/-, Rs. 12/-, Rs. 10/- and Re. 1/- per square metre respectively. The claimants will be entitled to receive solatium and interest in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed. .