JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the ''Act") has been preferred by the Sakhigopal Regulated Market Committee for whose benefit the State Government acquired land for public purpose, i.e. expansion of Market Yard of the appellant in mouza Kanjia and mouza Satyabadi in the district of Puri. The appellant has challenged the order dated 29-3-1993, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Puri, in L. A. Misc. Case No. 170 of 1982, whereby the State Government was directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre to claimant-respondents 1 and 2 over and above compensation of Rs. 45,000/- towards trees existing of the acquired land and further compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre for 'Gadia' kissam of land. 2. The case suffered a chequered history. The State Government issued a Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act on 20th. September, 1978 for acquisition of Ac. 17.14 decimals of land for the purpose of Expansion of Market Yard of the appellant in village Kanjia and Satyabadi. On 19-11-1979, the lands belonging to the claimants and others were acquired. Out of the total acquired lands, claimants respondents 1 and 2 were in possession of Plot Nos. 1270 and 1273 measuring Ac. 1.92 decimals in mouza Kanjia, which correspond to Hal Plot Nos. 1622. 1624, 1633 and 1623 respectively. The claimant-owners claimed that out of the acquired land there was coconut garden over Ac. 1.35 decimals and a tank on Ac. 0.57 decimals. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 15,183,30 to the claimants who received the amount under protest and filed objection u/s 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge, Puri, for determination of compensation which was registered as L. A. Misc. Case No. 170 of 1982. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the objection passed an award on 15-4-1983 for a sum of Rs. 70,368.50 over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The other claimants had also filed objections and the matters were referred u/s 18 of the Act and those cases had also been disposed Of. Case No. 170 of 1982. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the objection passed an award on 15-4-1983 for a sum of Rs. 70,368.50 over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The other claimants had also filed objections and the matters were referred u/s 18 of the Act and those cases had also been disposed Of. Against the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, the State filed different appeals in this Court and those were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19-4-1989, The appeal filed against the present claimant-respondents 1 and 2 was numbered as First Appeal No. 312 of 1983 arising out of L. A. Misc. Case No. 170 of 1983. This Court disagreeing with the observations of the Subordinate Judge for fixation of rates while determing market value of land acquired had remitted back the matters for re-determination of market value. The observation made in the judgment of this Court is quoted hereunder :-- "9.....But the learned Subordinate Judge having not indicated any specific basis for the rate variance of prices as adopted by him for almost similar land, we have no alternative than to remit back to the learned Subordinate Judge for a fresh adjudication. He would give opportunity to the acquirer as well as to the claimants to adduce evidance in support of their respective claims. He shall record specific reason if he fixes different rates for different plots of lands. We express no epinion on the rates to be fixed by him and do not put any embargo on his discretion. He shall also fix up solatium and additional compensation as provided in law keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, Since the case relates to the notification made more than 10 years back, we direct that the cases be taken up one after the other and be finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible, but in any event not later than 30-10-1989." After the matter was remitted, the present appellant filed an application Co be added as a party, but it did not find favour with the court below as a reason whereof, the present appellant had filed Civil Revision No. 286 of 1990, which was, however, dismissed. Thereafter, the claimant - respondents filed an amendment petition thereby claiming higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. The amendment petition was allowed. The parties led evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge, who on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, inter alia, held that for Ac. 1.33 decimals of Bagayat and Gharbari Kissam land the claimants will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre; for 79 coconut trees, claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 45,000/- and for 'Gadia' kissam land, the claimants shall be entitled at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre. The Subordinate Judge also directed that over and above the aforesaid amount, the claimants shall be paid solatium ' 30% and interest ' 9% for the first year of acquisition, thereafter ' 15% per annum till actual payment, less the amount of Rs. 15,168.50 which has already been received by the claimants. The appellant-Society being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination has filed the present First Appeal. The claimant-respondent No. 1 has filed a Cross-Objection challenging the valuation of Rs. 2,000/- per acre in respect of Gadia Kissam land and claimed higher "compensation ' Rs. 75,000/- per acre. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously urged that although the claimants had laid a claim of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, but the learned court below granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. It is submitted that though it is true that the claimants had subsequently amended their prayer claiming higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre and even assuming that such amendment was allowed, but that would not preclude the present appellant from challenging the said amendment in an appeal against the award. It has been also contended that the trial court should not be obvious to Ext. A which was an application filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 on 2-3-1975 before the appellant offering to sell Ac. 1.92 decimals of land in mouza Kanjia and Ac. 0.10 decimals in mouza Penthapada including trees for Rs. 16,000/-. He also offered to bear half' of the registration expenses. Ext. C is the certified copy of the Index issued u/s 57 of the Registration Act showing Ac, 0.003 decimals of Bagayat land at Kanjia sold on 26-7-1978 for Rs. 200/-(Rs 6666/- per acre), Ext. D, also another certified copy of Index showing Ac. 16,000/-. He also offered to bear half' of the registration expenses. Ext. C is the certified copy of the Index issued u/s 57 of the Registration Act showing Ac, 0.003 decimals of Bagayat land at Kanjia sold on 26-7-1978 for Rs. 200/-(Rs 6666/- per acre), Ext. D, also another certified copy of Index showing Ac. 0.10 decimals of land at Kanjia sold for Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. 10,000/- per acre). Ext. E, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 2-3-1978, disclosed that Ac. 0.08 decimals in Kanjia was sold for Rs. 500/- (Rs. 6225/- per acre). Ext. F, the order in Misc. Case No. 161/1982, where valuation was fixed at Rs. 10,000/-per acre Ext. G is the order in Misc. Case No. 156 of 1982 fixing valuation for Ac. 0.10 decimals at the rate of Rs. 6666/- per acre. 4. Before the trial court, the claimants have relied upon certified copies of the R.O.Rs (Exts. 1 and 2) rent receipts (Exts. 3 to 3/c); Exts, 4 to 6, the encumbrance certificates; Ext. 7, village Settlement map. Ext. 8, encumbrance certificate and Ext. 9, certified copy of R.O R. . The disputed Ac. 1.92 decimals of land is acquired for the purpose of expansion of Sakhigopal Regulated Market Yard. The land appertained to Sabik Plot Nos. 1270 and 1273, Sabik Khata No. 663 of mouza Kanjia. Since there was some controversy as to the nature of land and the corresponding Hal Plot numbers, the trial court ascertained from the Charge Officer the particulars of the land and after being satisfied that there are enough documents to establish the title and ownership of the claimants, held that in view of the admitted settlement entries in Exts. 1 and 2, the claim of the claimants that on the acquired lands they had their coconut gardents, Gadia (pond) and house can be safely accepted. From the R.O.Rs. under Exts. 1 and 2, it is seen that the kissam of land is "Nadia Bagayat" and "Gadia". The encumbrance certificates under Exts. 4 to 6 revealed that land had been sold to different persons in plot No. 589, the total extent of which was Ac. 0.12 decimals. From the oral evidence of p. w. 2 it is further gathered that a house, stood on plot No, 589 and the land is situated near Railway Level Crossing. The encumbrance certificates under Exts. 4 to 6 revealed that land had been sold to different persons in plot No. 589, the total extent of which was Ac. 0.12 decimals. From the oral evidence of p. w. 2 it is further gathered that a house, stood on plot No, 589 and the land is situated near Railway Level Crossing. The claimants have filed Settlement Maps which disclosed the situation of the land in plot Nos. 1270 and 1273, but it is significantly silent in so far as the land conveyed under Exts. 4 to 6 relating to plot No. 589. More so, the sale is in respect of small bits of land and, therefore, those exhibits have no bearing to determine the market values in respect of big patch of land, which was acquired in the present case. The claimants have also not established as to what was the distance between the land which was sold under Exts. 4 to 6 and the land which was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Market Yard. In the absence of those datas, it is difficult to hold that these encumbrance certificates will throw any light to determine the market value of the acquired land. In this connection we like to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1996)1 S.C.O. 542 (Basant Kumar v. Union of India). In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court decided in the following manner :-- "In this case, it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bigha, 18 biswas of land in the village. So all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not a good principle acceptable for the aforesaid reasons. When both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc. then only equal compensation is permissible." In this case also large extent of land, was acquired. It cannot be said that all the lands acquired under the same notification should have the equal potentiality, situation and also the advantages. Each bit of land has separate and independent valuation. While determining market value, the situation of the land, potentiality and extent are the factors. Ac. It cannot be said that all the lands acquired under the same notification should have the equal potentiality, situation and also the advantages. Each bit of land has separate and independent valuation. While determining market value, the situation of the land, potentiality and extent are the factors. Ac. 1.35 decimals was classified as 'Nadia Bagayat' which was used for only agricultural purpose and the balance Ac. 0.57 decimals was classified as 'Gadia'. The Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the valuation of different categories of land by taking into consideration sale particulars. The maximum rate per acre has been fixed at Rs. 6,666/- for Nadia Bagayat in Kanjia mouza. A large area i.e. Ac. 17.14 decimals of land was acquired. Most of the owners had received compensation as determined by the Court u/s 18 of the Act. In this case encumbrance certificates as well as sale deeds have been adduced in evidence. It is well settled that the parties to the document are not requited to be examined to prove it, a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale cannot be said to be inadmissible in evidence. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence without examining parties to the documents. This does not, however preclude the Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being mala fide or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court. It is further settled law that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1). The statute does not allow for payment of any further amount on account of "potential value" over and above the market value. 'Market value' means exactly what it says, viz., the price which the asset would or could be expected to fetch in the open market. Where a property has the potentiality of more profitable use, it will command a better price than property without such potential. In other words, potentiality forms part of the market value and may be a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the market value. Where a property has the potentiality of more profitable use, it will command a better price than property without such potential. In other words, potentiality forms part of the market value and may be a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the market value. But once the market valuers determined, there is no question of awarding any further amount in addition thereto by reason of any further future potential, (See, A. I. R. 2001 S. C. W. 2670 (State of Haryana v. Ram Singh). In the above background it is not necessary to insist the parties to examine the vendor or vendee to prove the encumbrance certificate/sale deed. However, while taking into consideration the encumbrance certificates under Exts. 4 to 6, it appears that they relate to sale transaction's in respect of plot No. 589 situate in mouza Satyabadi. The Settlement Map produced as per Ext. 7 does hot show plot No. 589 as the map relates to village Kanjia. Thus the sale transactions under Exts. 4 to 6 have no nexus with the land under acquisition. The court below has committed a gross error in calculating the compensation by taking into consideration the price stated in those documents. Ext. A relied upon by the appellant purports to be an application dated 2-3-1975 from claimant No. 1 addressed to the Regulated Market Committee offering to sell Ac. 1.92 in mouza Kanjia and Ac. 0.10 in mouza Penthapada including trees for Rs. 16,000/-. He also offered to bear half of the registration expenses. It is indubitably true that the p. w. 1, who is the younger brother of claimant No. 1 and claimant No 2 in the L. A. proceeding has stated in his evidence ;-- "10. I am acquainted with the handwriting and signature of my elder brother Mahesh Chandra Hota and I can recognize the same. This is an application of my brother dated 2-3-75 addressed to Sakhigopal R. M. C. market Ext. A." P.w.1 also in his evidence admitted that his brother, claimant No. 1 was looking after the case before the Land Acquisition Collector as well as before the court below. However, claimant No. 1 has not examined himself in the case, nor the respondent has taken any steps to examine claimant No. 1. A." P.w.1 also in his evidence admitted that his brother, claimant No. 1 was looking after the case before the Land Acquisition Collector as well as before the court below. However, claimant No. 1 has not examined himself in the case, nor the respondent has taken any steps to examine claimant No. 1. P. w. 1 has stated that since his elder brother is mentally imbalanced and acting prejudicially to their interest, that is why, he is deposing in this case, he having got direct interest in the subject-matter of the case. The trial court has, however refused to take into consideration Ext. A, since such a plea had not been raised in the objection and further that the document has come from one of the co-sharers of the property. In the above background, we are also not inclined to place reliance on Ext. A, to come to any conclusion regarding the market value of the land. In this particular case, the trial court in addition to the market value has also used capitalisation method to determine the compensation. It has taken into account that the produce from coconut trees was fetching Rs. 3,000/- per year and by using 15 multiplier calculated the income at Rs, 45,000/-, If that was the guideline, the trial court should not have taken into account the market value of the land as both these are impermissible in law for determining compensation. It is profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma Vs. State of Kerala. In paragraph-6, it has been clearly laid down :.- 6. It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit, but separate units it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees, the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal. The High Court laid the law correctly." It is to be next considered as to if the valuation fixed by the trial court is rejected, what should be the just and proper valuation or the market price prevalent at the time of acquisition. Although the land Acquisition Officer had fixed the valuation at Rs, 6,666/-per acre, it appears to be quite inadequate, disproportionate and arbitrary. At the same time, the evidence led by both parties do not assist us to come to a positive finding as to determining the market value. However, it is pertinent to notice that the land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of a market yard and the land .adjoins the appellant's complex. Therefore, it can be well imagined that the land assumes much importances for the purpose of the appellant's complex. The claimants had originally claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, but subsequently amended their claim to Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre which appears to be imaginary, excessive and speculative. Taking into consideration the situation and extent of the land having fruit bearing trees and the kissam of the land as Nadia Bagayat, we think it proper to fix the compensation at Rs.75,000/- per acre. Since we have determined the valuation of the land, there is no further necessity to adopt capitalisation method by determining the usufructs from the trees. The claimants shall be entitled to the compensation in addition to the statutory benefits like solatium at the rate of 30 per cent over and above interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the compensation amount barring the amount which the claimants have already received. For the Gadia Kissam land, the claimants have preferred a Cross-Objection. We find that out of the total acquired land only Ac. 0.35 decimals of land is held to be 'Gadia' which was maintained by the claimants for the benefit of the coconut trees. The valuation fixed for this category of land at Rs.2,000/- appears to be inadequate. For the Gadia Kissam land, the claimants have preferred a Cross-Objection. We find that out of the total acquired land only Ac. 0.35 decimals of land is held to be 'Gadia' which was maintained by the claimants for the benefit of the coconut trees. The valuation fixed for this category of land at Rs.2,000/- appears to be inadequate. Considering the utility and importance of the 'Gadia' in relation to the fruit bearing coconut trees, we enhance the compensation of 'Gadia' land to Rs, 15,000/- per acre. The Cross-Objection of the claimants is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated. While parting with the case, we find that the litigation continues for over two decades and parties are not getting real benefits of the acquisition. Therefore, taking broad and exhaustive view of the matter, we have determined the compensation as above. The award passed by, the Subordinate Judge is accordingly modified and the First Appeal is disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout. N.Y. Hanumanthappa, C.J. 5. I agree. 6. F.A. disposed of.