N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the original claimant of Land Reference Case No. 16/89 of Gity Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge of Court No. 19, by his order dated 16th March, 1983, was pleased to reject the reference and thereby dismissed the prayer for additional compensation. ( 2 ) THE acquisition proceedings from which the said reference had arisen was the result of a Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11-4-1974 published in Government Gazette on 11-7-1974. After completion of formalities, the additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, by his award dated 31-3-1980 granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 60. 87 per sq. mtr. as per the market value prevailing on the date of publication of said Notification under Sec. 4. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Reference Court, the appellant-claimant, a charitable Trust, had relied on 2 pieces of evidence; one was an experts opinion and the other was an agreement to lease entered into on or about 21st August, 1973. ( 4 ) THE experts evidence has been discarded by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the expert, who has been examined at Exh. 26, has relied upon different sales instances of different period covering post and pre date of Notification under Sec. ( 5 ) IF the sale instances are available with the Expert, they ought to have been produced as a piece of evidence relied upon by the claimant in support of their claim for additional compensation. In absence of this direct evidence, which they could have produced as the said instances were available to the expert, this method of indirectly introducing the evidence, which ought to have been produced directly, was negatived by the learned Judge and we are in agreement with this approach. This leaves the remaining piece of evidence namely Agreement Exh. 14. As could be expected, there is considerable controversy about the genuineness of this agreement. First point in this regard is the stamp paper of Rs. 3/- on which the agreement has been superscribed and further, pages annexed to it is not purchased in the name of either of the parties to the agreement. Secondly, the sum of Rs. 12,500/- said to have been paid towards earnest money of the agreement does not seem to have been returned though the agreement came to be cancelled on 28. 1. 1976. Secondly, the sum of Rs. 12,500/- said to have been paid towards earnest money of the agreement does not seem to have been returned though the agreement came to be cancelled on 28. 1. 1976. There are other circumstances also which can be pressed into service for attacking this agreement as a got-up one. However, as a direct answer to this, the appellant- claimant Trust has got a receipt Exh. 15 dated 3-9-1973 which discloses that sum of Rs. 12,500/- was given to the claimant- appellant by a cheque of the same date and it was deposited in the claimants Bank namely Central Bank of India for being encashed. Corresponding entries are to be found in the cash book of the claimant, that also we have seen in original. Under the circumstances, much of the arguments about the genuineness of the document can be said to have been taken care of. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, what clinches the issue against the claimant is the provisions of the gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibtion of Alienation Act), 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Vacant Lands Act ). Sec. 4 of this Act prohibits any alienation which includes lease and if the transaction is in contravention of this Sec. 4, it is declared to be null and void. ( 7 ) AGREEMENT Exh. 14 therefore, loses its force so far as claim for additional compensation is concerned. The property under acquisition being in excess of 1000 sq. mtrs. which is limitation as per the said Vacant Lands Act, it ceases to be marketable land and strictly speaking therefore, there cannot be any market value muchless, therefore, there could be any earning potential by way of rent or lease-premium. ( 8 ) ONCE this aspect is borne in mind, which was incidentally referred to before the trial Judge, the support alleged to be drawn from the agreement is not available to the claimants and hence, the claim for additional compensation cannot be sustained. We agree with L. A. Mr. Gandhi that the learned trial Judge was wrong in drawing inference that the agreement was entered into as the claimants i. e. the Board of Trustees or their managers, had come to know about the letter dated 2-5-1973 said to have been written by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad for whose purpose (play ground purpose) the land was sought to be acquired. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this knowledge could ever have been attributed to any one concerned of the claimant. Except for this, in our opinion, nothing can be in favour of the claimants and so far as the claim for additional compensation is concerned, as stated above, there is no justification at all. The net result, therefore, is that the appeal fails. In view of the fact that the appellant is a Trust, there should be no order as to costs. .