N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two groups of matters are decided by this common judgment. These matters arise out of Land Reference Cases No. 54 to 69 all of 1989 and 27 of 1991 to 35/95 decided by one and the same learned Judge of the Reference Court i. e. the assistant Judge, Amreli on different dates. He decided chronologically the references from which First Appeals No. 1885 of 1995 and the group arise. Relying on that very judgment, he decided the subsequent matters. Virtually, therefore, his decision rests on the reasons given by him in Land Reference Case No. 69 of 1989 which he has treated as the main reference so far as the first group of appeals are concerned. ( 2 ) ). For reasons to be stated hereunder, the matters are required to be remanded. The learned Judge, in his judgment, has adopted a method of sale instances for deciding the market value. This is one of the accepted mode of arriving at market value. However, so far as the merits of the instances relied on by him is concerned, unfortunately he has lost sight of the fact that the documents Exhs. 14 and 15 relied on by him were not on record in the manner required under the Indian evidence Act, particularly under Sec. 68. The documents in question were referred to in the deposition of one of the claimants Mr. Premji Devji Exh. 13, who referred the documents as mark 10/3 and 10/4. This is the position in para 2 of his examination in chief. The documents were not exhibited at the end of the examination in chief and in our opinion, rightly so, because neither the execution was proved; nor contents of the documents were proved. In the course of cross-examination, on behalf of the State the learned Government Pleader, at the fag end of para 9, has referred to these two documents and put questions in the cross- examination. We agree with the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Shelat that these questions were not required to be put at all to the witness because the documents were not accepted in evidence as they were not given regular exhibited nos. and therefore, were not forming part of the record. At the same time, merely when questions are put, the approach of the learned Judge exhibiting the said documents is not correct. and therefore, were not forming part of the record. At the same time, merely when questions are put, the approach of the learned Judge exhibiting the said documents is not correct. Questions put to the witness do not in any way, indicate that genuineness of the documents and contents thereof are admitted by the State. On the contrary, the trend of the cross-examination clearly indicates that the evidence was sought to be challenged by putting questions as to the genuineness and authenticity and particularly the price said to have been paid with regard to these sale transactions. ( 3 ) ). Far from admitting the documents, therefore, the learned Government Pleader was challenging the contents thereof and was making attempts, in his own way, to see that these documents do not help the claimants in getting the market value fixed as sought by them. ( 4 ) ). As we are remanding the matter, we will not make any comments with regard to the intrinsic worth of these evidences or their evidentiary value. We will not express any opinion as to whether these documents would help the claimants in getting the market value fixed as sought to be done by them. However, so far as exhibiting the documents are concerned, unless the contents thereof are proved and particularly requirement of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act are fulfilled, those documents cannot be exhibited and read in evidence. On remand, while dealing with the matters, the learned Judge shall take care of this aspect and bear these observations in mind. ( 5 ) ). The other infirmity in the judgment is with regard to granting the value of the trees. The learned Judge has divided the trees into two categories namely fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees. Having adopted the method of sale instance with regard to the fruit bearing trees, the learned Judge has proceeded to evaluate the worth of the yield on annual basis and has capitalised the same. ( 6 ) ). No doubt, yield basis is one of the methods for arriving at the figure of compensation in absence of sale instances or other permissible method namely experts opinion. However, to adopt both the methods is clearly not available for which there are two Supreme Court Judgments AIR 1991 SC 2027 and AIR 1988 SC 943 . ( 7 ) ). No doubt, yield basis is one of the methods for arriving at the figure of compensation in absence of sale instances or other permissible method namely experts opinion. However, to adopt both the methods is clearly not available for which there are two Supreme Court Judgments AIR 1991 SC 2027 and AIR 1988 SC 943 . ( 7 ) ). The Honble Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the first of the two decisions followed in the subsequent decisions that trees forming part of the land, if the sale instance is taken to be the method of fixing the market value, are to be considered as a part of the land and the additional aspect required to be considered is the timber value that might be obtaining on tree being cut and sold in the market as such. There also, there has to be a reduction for cutting and salvage operation. In other words, the trees cannot be separated from the land for arriving at the value independent of the land and after doing that exercise adding the value thus arrived at in respect of fruit bearing trees to the market value of the land and award compensation on both the counts. ( 8 ) ). Similar aspect with regard to the well is required to be considered and in some of the lands under acquisition there were fully operation wells and the learned Judge has proceeded to evaluate this facility independent of the market value of the land and added the value thus arrived at with regard to the well also, to the land, the value of which was fixed on the basis of the sale instances. ( 9 ) ). The reason for this approach being struck down and the finding in this regard being not appreciated has been set out very well in Judgment Today 94 Vol. 6 page 366 where the Honble Supreme Court clearly holds that well forms part of the land and while ascertaining the market value of the land with irrigation facility, the land having well may be treated as irrigated land and market value may be assessed on that basis. However, well cannot be evaluated separately and after that exercise the value of the well which is arrived at, cannot be added to the value of the land. However, well cannot be evaluated separately and after that exercise the value of the well which is arrived at, cannot be added to the value of the land. In the instant case, the learned Judge has done both the aforesaid exercises namely to fix the value of the fruit bearing trees independently and at the same time the value of the land and likewise to fix the value of the well and add the same to the value of the land. This is not permissible and hence both these findings of the Trial Court are set aside. On remand, the Reference Judge shall ignore these aspects and at the same time, in keeping with the decisions of the supreme Court will certainly consider as to whether the lands where well in fact were existing and functional could be considered as irrigated land or not. If the evidence in that regard before the Trial Court did show that these pieces of land are irrigated land, it can ascertain the market value on that basis. The State along with these appeals, has filed civil Applications for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27. We are not dealing with these applications here, instead, liberty is reserved to the State to approach the Trial Court with a request for leading additional evidence which the Trial Court shall consider on its own merit and after hearing both the sides whether to permit production of evidence and also further evidence with regard to proof of these documents. ( 10 ) ). In our opinion, when documents Exhs. 15 and 16 mark 10/3 and 10/4 are held by us not to have been properly exhibited, opportunity is required to be given to the claimants to prove these documents and hence, the matters are going back to the Trial court where the parties are liberty to produce documentary evidence and thereafter to lead evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter, the claimants will also have a right to adduce evidence in support of the documents at marks 10/3 and 10/4 as well as other documents that they might chose to produce in response to the additional evidence which the State wants to produce and accordingly the case may be taken from the stage of recording of evidence after issues are framed. In the circumstances, both the parties are at liberty to examine their respective witnesses. In view of the fact that the matters are very old, the Reference Court shall give top priority to the cases and parties to references shall also co-operate and shall see that the matters are disposed of as early as possible. In any case, the Reference Court shall decide the matter on or before 31st of january 1996. With a view to save further time on service of notice, the parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 15th of November 1995 and get the date fixed for proceeding with the matter further. Office is directed to the send the original record to the Trial Court so that the said dead-line can be met with by both the sides. The awards of the Reference Court in all these matters are set aside. The appeals stand allowed accordingly. The matters stand remanded to the Reference Court and it shall decide the same keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with the evidence produced before it and ofcourse, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The Civil Applications are also disposed of accordingly. .