M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 15th October, 1984 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha, at Himmatnagar, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 495/ 84 and others, the claimants have preferred these appeals. Statement showing the details and particulars of First Appeals and Land Reference Cases is as under : (See table on next page) ( 2 ) IN the present case, the lands are acquired for the Western Railway, for the scheme "nadiad-Kapadwanj-Modesa Railway Line". Notification dated 12th January, 1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short), was published in the Government Gazette on 17th May, 1980. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11th December, 1980. The Deputy Collector, Modasa, by his award dated 30th June, 1983, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3. 50 to Rs. 10. 25 Ps. per sq. mtr. Against that award, the claimants had preferred the aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the District Judge, Himmatnagar. ( 3 ) IN all these references, the learned Judge has arrived at the conclusion that, considering the potentiality of the lands, the price of the acquired lands could be fixed at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per sq. mtr (Rs. 2000/- per Area ). It is also observed that, though the lands under acquisition are agricultural lands, considering the fact that they are situated in a Sr. First Name of Claimants LAR NO. Survy. No. Area H-A No. Appeal Sq. mtr. 1. 981/88 Bhikbhabhai K. Patel 495/84 415 1-80-00 Jayantibhai K. Patel Vinubhai K. Patel 2a 407 Kiranben K. Patel 2. 982/88 Ismail Mohmedhusain 196/84 407 0-67-12 Ibrahimbhai Mohmedhusain Ayesaben W/o. Abdullabhai Mohmadbhai 3. 983/88 Maganbhai Revabhai 497/84 417 0-16-00 4. 985/88 Amichandbhai Kodarbhai 499/84 445 1-96-00 Amnubhai Kodarbhai 444 0-00-24 5. 986/88 Dehyabhai Dhulabhai 500/84 4/6/2 1-58-56 6. 987/88 Kantibhai Hirabhai 502/84 389 4-22-32 Punjabhai Hirabhai Paiki Kodarben Hirabhai Mohanbhai Jeeingbhai 7. 988/88 Smt. Shamimbhai Gafarbhai 501/84 416/1 1-90-20 Ibrahimbhai Gafarbhai Ahmedabhai Gafarbhai 8. 989/88 Punjabhai 503/84 414 3-65-90 Rehmanbhai Aminbhai, K. 9. 990/88 Kantibhai Jivanbhai Ramanbhai 504/84 412 0-49-19 10. 991/88 Jiwabhai Motibhai 505/84 413 1-19-39 Amichandbhai Bhikhabhai Kodarbhai Jayantibhai Vinubhai Kodarbhai Kiranben Jiwabhai 11. 992/88 Kantibhai Jiwabhai 506/84 404 0-64-00 Ramanbhai Jiwabhai 400 2-20-00 Amichandbhai Jiwabhai 410 2-64-00 5-48-00 12. 993/88 Jiwabhai Motibhai 507/84 411 2-96-43 Ramanbhai Jivabhai 13. 989/88 Punjabhai 503/84 414 3-65-90 Rehmanbhai Aminbhai, K. 9. 990/88 Kantibhai Jivanbhai Ramanbhai 504/84 412 0-49-19 10. 991/88 Jiwabhai Motibhai 505/84 413 1-19-39 Amichandbhai Bhikhabhai Kodarbhai Jayantibhai Vinubhai Kodarbhai Kiranben Jiwabhai 11. 992/88 Kantibhai Jiwabhai 506/84 404 0-64-00 Ramanbhai Jiwabhai 400 2-20-00 Amichandbhai Jiwabhai 410 2-64-00 5-48-00 12. 993/88 Jiwabhai Motibhai 507/84 411 2-96-43 Ramanbhai Jivabhai 13. 994/88 Rabhai Gafurbhai 508/84 448 2-82-27 Nurbai Gafurbhai Fatmaben Gafurbhai NT Malamben Gafurbhai 14. 995/88 Dhulabhai Becharbhai 509/84 415 0-35-04 2b 15. 996/88 Bhikhabhai Kodarbhai 510/84 451 2-53-80 16. 997/88 Shamjibhai Ladllabhai 511/84 450 0-13-04 Khetabhai NT developed area, and their location, market rate of the lands under acquisition could be fixed at Rs. 200/ - per Area. For arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Judge has relied upon the sale instances of Survey Nos. 454 and 456 cited by the acquiring body and sale instance of survey No. 389 cited by the claimants. After considering the said sale instances, the learned Judge has arrived at the following conclusion :"thus, from the sale instances produced by both the parties, it can be learnt that the price of the non-agricultural land near acquiring land in the year 1980 is in between Rs. 40 / - to Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The land of survey No. 389 is just adjoining the acquired land. Moreover, most of the survey numbers are within the limits of Modasa Nagar Panchayat and, therefore, approximate price of the non-agriculture land can be assessed at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. In the present case, all the lands acquired are agriculture lands and, therefore, looking to the price of the non-agriculture land, price of the agriculture land would be required to be reduced by 1/4th. Moreover, here the acquisition is on large scale and the sale instance is of small piece and, therefore, again there would be a deduction of 33% value of agricultural land and making calculation on this base, the price of the non-agriculture land would come to Rs. 16. 75 per sq. mtr. i. e. , Rs. Moreover, here the acquisition is on large scale and the sale instance is of small piece and, therefore, again there would be a deduction of 33% value of agricultural land and making calculation on this base, the price of the non-agriculture land would come to Rs. 16. 75 per sq. mtr. i. e. , Rs. 1,675/0 per R. A. situated near the acquired land and, therefore, all the acquired land has potentiality for its non-agriculture use and there is all chances for development in future with regard to this land and, therefore, 20% value should be added towards the potentiality of the land and in this event, the price of the land would come to Rs. 290/- per sq. mtr. i. e. , Rs. 2,000/- per R. A. " ( 4 ) MR. Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently submitted that, the learned Judge, has accepted the sale instances relied upon by the claimants; has arrived at the conclusion that the approximate price of the non-agricultural lands can be assessed at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr; has reduced the said price for determining the price of the agricultural land by 1/4th, and has further reduced it by 33% (on the ground of small pieces of land ). From the above, it is clear that the learned Judge has committed an error apparent in the said calculations. According to his submission, if Rs. 100/- are reduced by 1/4th, it would come to Rs. 75/ -. That means, the price of non-agricultural land per sq. mtr. would be Rs. 75/ -. If it is further reduced by 33% on the ground that the land under acquisition is big plot and the sale instances are pertaining to smaller pieces of land, then it would come to Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. He, therefore, submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of record and in the calculations made by the learned Judge and, therefore, the claimants should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. ( 5 ) IN our view, this submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is without any substance. The learned Judge assessed the price of the non-agricultural land approximately at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. 50/- per sq. mtr. ( 5 ) IN our view, this submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is without any substance. The learned Judge assessed the price of the non-agricultural land approximately at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. For determining the price of the agricultural land, the learned Judge has arrived at the conclusion that it would be 1/4th of the price of the non-agricultural land, meaning thereby, it would be Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. The learned Judge has further deducted 33% on the ground that the sale instances are of small pieces of land and arrived at the conclusion that it would be Rs. 16. 75 ps. per sq. mtr. The word "the price of agricultural land would be required to be reduced by 1/4th" would mean that Rs. 100/- are required to be reduced to 1/4th (i. e. Rs. 25) and it would not mean that the amount of Rs. 100/- is required to be reduced by 1/4th. This is the meaning, which is given by the learned Judge and it is in consonance with the final figure of Rs. 16. 75 ps. arrived at by him (Rs. 25/- reduced by 33% would come to Rs. 16. 75 ). ( 6 ) FURTHER, in any case, it is apparent that the learned Judge has committed grievous error in relying upon the said sale instances (Exhs. 121, 122, 156 and 161) because, admittedly, neither the claimants nor the acquiring body nor the land acquisition officer had examined witnesses to prove the contents of the said documents. Neither the vendor nor the vendee is examined to prove the sale instances. It is well settled law that contents of a document are required to be proved by adducing necessary evidence. Mere production of a copy of sale deed would not prove its contents. Further, from the sale deed, it cannot be decided by the Court that the said document is between the bona fide purchaser and seller or it is between the willing buyer and the willing seller. Hence, by merely referring to the consideration, area transferred, etc. mentioned in the sale deed, inference cannot be drawn that the land was sold at the prevailing market price. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case such as whether the purchaser was in need of land for various reasons, viz. Hence, by merely referring to the consideration, area transferred, etc. mentioned in the sale deed, inference cannot be drawn that the land was sold at the prevailing market price. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case such as whether the purchaser was in need of land for various reasons, viz. , may be he is the owner of the adjoining land or the land in the vicinity or was in possession of the land as mortgagee or tenant or for some other special reasons. It would also depend upon the circumstances under which the vendor has executed the sale deed. Therefore, without examining the vendor, vendee or a person having complete knowledge of the sale transaction, it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the land was sold at the prevailing market rate. ( 7 ) THE Honourable Supreme Court has dealt with similar contention in a catena of decisions. In the case of Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 , the Supreme Court held that the sale statement by itself without examining either the vendors or the vendees or the persons attesting the sale deed is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. ( 8 ) SIMILARLY, in the case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 2051 , the Court has held that, "as far as the sale instance evidenced by Exhibit l18 is concerned, it has been discarded by the High Court and, in our view, rightly so, because neither the vendor nor the purchaser nor any person conversant with the sale was examined. " The Court has also observed that evidence of Virbhadrasinh, who was minor at the time of execution of sale deed, would be of no relevance as he had no personal information regarding sale under Exhibit 118. The Court has also not relied upon the evidence of one Ratilal who prepared the said document on the ground that he did not have any personal knowledge about the transaction either. The Court has also not relied upon the evidence of one Ratilal who prepared the said document on the ground that he did not have any personal knowledge about the transaction either. ( 9 ) FURTHER, in the case of Parameshwari Devi v. P. S. E. B. , AIR 1994 SC l142, the Court held as under :"it is well settled law that it is the duty of the claimant to prove the sale deeds by adducing evidence either of the vendor or vendee or attesting witness of passing of the consideration under the sale deed, to prove that the sale transactions are genuine transactions between the willing vendor and willing vendee; that the consideration had in fact been passed under the document duly registered, represent the prevailing market value; and also the lands under acquisition and the lands concerning the sale are similarly situated and possessed of same or similar nature, advantages etc. The burden is always on the claimants. In this case that attempt was not made. Therefore, the High Court is right in rejecting the sale deeds relied on by the appellant. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) SAME view is taken in the case of P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, (1995) 1 JT (SC) 593 : (1995 AIR SCW 871), wherein the Court has held that the mere fact that a certified copy of the document is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document does not dispense with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such documents produced in Court in examining witnesses connected with documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. The Court has further held that the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the Court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in Court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the Court as true. ( 11 ) FURTHER, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini, (1995) 1 SCC 717 : (1995 AIR SCW 823), wherein the Court has held such sales must not only be proved but also be bona fide transactions etc. These factors must be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or the vendee. ( 11 ) FURTHER, in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini, (1995) 1 SCC 717 : (1995 AIR SCW 823), wherein the Court has held such sales must not only be proved but also be bona fide transactions etc. These factors must be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or the vendee. Marking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. Bona fide sale or series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis to determine market value. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants, submitted that the claimants had filed an application (Exh. 16) along with List (Exh. 17) for production of the documents and on 6th August, 1986 the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opponents had made an endorsement on that application by stating "no objection for production". Below that application, the learned Judge had passed the following order :"production allowed. Shri H. S. Sevde appearing on behalf of the acquiring body and Shri K. A. Shah for the Government are also present. They have no objection. " ( 13 ) MR. Amin further relied upon an endorsement made by the learned Judge on 1st September, 1987, which is as under :"admit documents; Mark 17/40, 17/41 and 17/42 be exhibited. "he further submitted that, once the documents are exhibited by the learned Judge, the said documents are required to be read into and ought to have been relied upon by the learned Judge. From the aforesaid endorsement, he submitted that as the learned Judge has passed an order permitting production of the said documents on record, and the same are admitted and exhibited, it would mean that the proof of the said documents is dispensed with. ( 14 ) IN our view, this submission is without any substance in view of the well settled law that, for the purpose of determining the prevailing market value of the land, the contents of the sale deed are required to be proved by adducing evidence of either vendor or vendee or other person who is fully conversant with the transaction. Further, it is also to be borne in mind that the contents of the documents are not admitted by the Respondents. Further, it is also to be borne in mind that the contents of the documents are not admitted by the Respondents. In this view of the matter, in our view, the sale instances relied upon by the claimants or by the acquiring body cannot be relied upon. From the documents, it would be difficult to jump to the conclusion that the purchasers had purchased the said property by paying the prevailing market rate on that the said documents are genuine between a willing purchaser and a willing seller without being affected by the consideration such as need of the purchaser or of the seller or for some other reasons, which would have the bearing on the purchase price. Hence, the sale instances relied upon by the trial Court would be of no assistance in determining the market rate of the lands under acquisition, as the trial Court has committed apparent error in relying upon the said documents, without realizing the fact that the contents of the said documents are not proved. Without the concerned witnesses being examined, it would be difficult for the Court to arrive at the conclusion that the consideration stated in the said documents is the genuine market rate of the land under transaction. As stated earlier, this would be against the settled law. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid pronouncements by the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss the following decisions relied upon by Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, for contending that, once the documents are admitted in evidence, it can be the basis for determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. (1) In the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada Thermal Station v. Nutalapati Venkata Rao, AIR 1991 Andh Pra 31 (FB ). (2) In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jeo Raj, AIR 1990 Raj 90 . ( 16 ) IN any case, in our view, even if the said documents are taken into consideration, it would be of no assistance for fixing the market rate of the lands under acquisition. ( 17 ) DOCUMENT Exh. 121 is the sale deed dated 5-9-1979 for plot of land admeasuring 10 ft. x 35 ft. , for Rs. 3,000/ -. As per the document it was part of plot No. 33 admeasuring 72 ft. x 35 ft. That plot of 72 ft. x 35 ft. ( 17 ) DOCUMENT Exh. 121 is the sale deed dated 5-9-1979 for plot of land admeasuring 10 ft. x 35 ft. , for Rs. 3,000/ -. As per the document it was part of plot No. 33 admeasuring 72 ft. x 35 ft. That plot of 72 ft. x 35 ft. was further divided into 7 small plots and out of those 7 small plots, one plot was purchased under the said document Exh. 121. ( 18 ) FURTHER, Ex. 122 is a sale deed for the land of shop No. 2 on plot No. 33 out of non-agricultural land survey No. 389. That sale deed is executed on 14-5-1981. Admittedly, the area of the plot of the said shop is 10 ft. x 35 ft. In the document itself, it is mentioned that N. A. permission was granted by order dated 26-10-1961. From the said document, it can be said that N. A. permission was granted for some part of Survey No. 389/1 since 26l0-1961, and it was plotted out for the purpose of construction of shops. Apart from that, fact, the sale deed is executed subsequent to the issuance of the Notification under S. 4 of the Act (S. 4 Notification was issued on 19-1-1980 and was published on 17-5-1980, and the Notification under S. 6 of the Act is dated 11-12-1980 ). ( 19 ) THE learned Judge has relied upon the aforesaid sale instances for fixing the market rate of the lands under acquisition. In our view, the aforesaid sale instances cannot be relied upon for fixing the market rate, mainly because. (i) As discussed earlier, the contents of the said documents are not proved by examining the concerned witnesses. (ii) The land which was sold under document Exh. 121 is absolutely a small piece of land admeasuring 10 ft. x 35 ft. out of a plot of land admeasuring 72 ft. x 35 ft. That too, in the document itself, it is mentioned that it is a plot out of Survey No. 389/1, which was divided into various plots. (iii) Similarly with regard to the document Ex. 122, it is executed after one year of the notification under S. 4 of the Act. It is also for a small plot admeasuring 10 ft. x 35 ft. (iii) Similarly with regard to the document Ex. 122, it is executed after one year of the notification under S. 4 of the Act. It is also for a small plot admeasuring 10 ft. x 35 ft. ; that plot is for construction of shop and the document itself mentions that N. A. permission was granted by the order dated 26-10-196l. (iv) The learned Judge has not relied upon the sale instance contained in document Ex. 123, on the ground that the land sold under that sale deed is situated at a distance from the land under acquisition. For this purpose, the learned Judge has relied upon the map which is produced on the record. That sale deed is for a plot of land admeasuring 254 sq. mtrs. out of Survey No. 491/1 of Modasa for which sale deed was executed on 10-12-1982. Thus, the said sale deed is executed after a lapse of two years of the notification under S. 4 of the Act. (v) Similarly, the sale instance contained in document Ex. 124 is also not relied upon by the learned Judge as, by the said sale deed, N. A. Land admeasuring 20 gunthas of Survey No. 369 was sold for residential purpose. The learned Judge observed that the said survey number is also at a distance from the land under acquisition. ( 20 ) MR. Amin, however, submitted that, in view of the fact that there is development in the vicinity, and also the fact that the lands under acquisition are situated in the municipal area, the market rate of the land should be fixed of the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. after taking into consideration the potentialities for its future development. . ( 21 ) IT is true that for fixing the market rate of the land, potentialities of the land can be taken into consideration. But at the same time, the price cannot be fixed merely on conjectures. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 (supra ). But at the same time, the price cannot be fixed merely on conjectures. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 (supra ). In that judgment, in paragraph 28, the Court has observed that the landholder has generally secured anything from four to forty times as much for the land as its agricultural price, i. e. , many times its real value; this result unfortunately springs from a general tendency of District Judges in hearing a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to assume that purely agricultural lands, merely by their proximity to a city or town, become endowed with special adaptability as a building site, while it is not suggested that unfairly low value should be offered, on the other hand the temptation to over generosity must be equally resisted. Such generosity at the public expense reacts against the development and against the prosperity of the country and imposes an unnecessary burden on the Tax-payer. ( 22 ) SIMILARLY, in the case of P. Ram Reddy (1995 AIR SCW 871) (supra), dealing with similar contentions, the Court has observed that the building potentiality is also required to be determined with reference to the material placed on record or made available in that regard by the party concerned, and not solely on surmises conjectures or pure guess (Emphasis supplied) ( 23 ) MR. Amin further submitted that this group of matters be remanded to the trial Court with a permission to the claimants to prove the sale instances relied upon by them. In our view, no case is made out under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for remand of the matters. The claimants were afforded full opportunity before the trial Court to produce and examine the witnesses and yet they have chosen not to examine witnesses for proving the documents Ex. 121 or Ex. 122. In any case, in our view, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matters for, as, stated earlier documents Ex. 121 or Ex. 122 cannot be the basis for fixing the market price of the lands under acquisition. Hence this contention also cannot be accepted. 121 or Ex. 122. In any case, in our view, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matters for, as, stated earlier documents Ex. 121 or Ex. 122 cannot be the basis for fixing the market price of the lands under acquisition. Hence this contention also cannot be accepted. ( 24 ) IN the above view of the matter, in our view, it is not necessary to refer to the evidence in the form of Index of the sale extracts Exs. 156 and 157, produced by the acquiring body. The said sale extracts also cannot be the basis for fixing the market price of the lands under acquisition. As stated above, the witnesses are required to be examined for proving the sale instances. But that is not done in the present case. ( 25 ) LASTLY, Mr. Amin, learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that damages should be given to the claimants on account of serverance of their lands. This aspect is discussed by the learned Judge in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment, where it is stated that only Survey Nos. 303 and 445 are divided into two pieces, on acquisition of the land from those survey numbers, while there is no division of the lands comprised in the rest of the survey numbers, because acquisition of the land is only from one side, and that it cannot be said that the land left out is of such a nature that it cannot be utilised for any purpose. As regards lands of S. Nos. 303 and 445, the learned Judge, after arriving at the conclusion that there is no data on record to find out the actual measurement of the pieces of land, granted damages by awarding additional compensation at the rate of 2% of the market rate. In our view, this finding is not in any way erroneous. There is no evidence on record justifying any additional award under the head of damages because of severance of the lands. ( 26 ) IN the above view of the matter, there is no substance in these appeals and they are, therefor dismissed with no order as to costs. .