S. R. DONGAONKAR,J,:- Present First Appeal No.62 of 1997 and Cross-Objection Petition St. No.9488 of 1997 arise out of the same Judgment and Award passed in L.A.R. No. 13 of 1995 by Civil Judge, Senior Division. Jalna by the Judgment dated 25/4/1996. The Appellant State of Maharashtra is challenging the said Judgment and Award contending that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court \vas excessive and unwarranted whereas Cross-Objection is for claiming compensation at the rate more than what was awarded by the reference Court. 2 The facts leading to this Appeal and Cross-Objection are thus: Original Petitioners/claimants are the owners of land gut No.92 admeasuring 19 Hectares 39 R. (48 Acres and 19 Gunthas) of village Bathan (13k.). Tq. & Dist-Jalna. Out of this, land admeasuring 18 Hectares 54 R. was acquired for Waki Project i.e. Percolation Tank. The relevant notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette on 13/9/1990. Section 6 declaration was also made. Thereafter the S.L.A.O. passed award on 15/9/1994. The compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was based on classification of the acquired land. Four groups were considered by the S.L.A.O. based on the quality of the soil. The acquired land, it is stated was categorized as Group No.3. The acquired land was classified in three categories namely Jirayat which was admeasuring 3 Hectares 40 R., Seasonally Irrigated admeasuring 8 Hectares and Perennially Inigated land admeasuring 6 Hectares 52 R. Land admeasuring 62 R. was considered as Potkharab land i.e. fallow land. The compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs.245/- per R. for Jirayat land. Rs.367/- per R. for Seasonally Irrigated land and Rs.490/per R. for Perennially Irrigated land. For Potkharab land, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.2/- per R. The S.L.A.O. did not award compensation for wells, pipeline and alleged structure called as Farm House. The total compensation granted was to the tune of Rs.II.73.048/-. 3. The original Petitioners/claimants/Respondents in First Appeal and Cross objectionist challenged that A ward by way of Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1.1O.000/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.1.100/- per R. and treated whole land as perennially inigated (Bagayat) land. The Reference Court also awarded compensation for the trees to the tune of Rs.37.500/- treating them to be fruit bearing trees besides other reliefs according to law. 4. Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1.1O.000/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.1.100/- per R. and treated whole land as perennially inigated (Bagayat) land. The Reference Court also awarded compensation for the trees to the tune of Rs.37.500/- treating them to be fruit bearing trees besides other reliefs according to law. 4. This Judgment and Award is challenged in the present Appeal and Cross Objection. 5. The State has filed Appeal mainly contending that the Reference Court has awarded compensation at a very exorbitant rate and by treating the whole land as perennially irrigated land. which was not correct. The A ward of the Reference Court is also challenged on the ground that when the compensation is granted on the basis of the land being perennially irrigated land no compensation for trees could be granted. 6. Cross-Objection is filed to claim that the market rate of the land acquired was Rs.l.50.000/- at the relevant time. The Cross Objectionist also claimed that they should have been granted compensation for the wells as well as farm house on the acquired land so also pipe line installed in the acquired land for irrigation purpose. It may be stated that the claimants have led evidence of claimant Gautamchand Abad in support of the Reference. They have also examined other witnesses, namely, PW -2 Ramesh Devawale, who was allegedly purchasing sugar-cane from the claimants for selling the same further to the persons running Raswantis i.e. vendors of sugar-cane juice. PW -3 Ratnamalabai Jagdhane, who is adjacent land owner to depose about the wells, electric motor pumps installed thereon, pipe line, fruit bearing trees, farm house and income from the land. PW -4 Shesihrao Jagdhane, who deposed about all these things in addition, PW -5 Shaikh Lalmiya, who is dealing in fruits and who was allegedly purchasing mango fruits, tamarind and ber from the claimants. PW-6 Bhaskar Jagdhane who was working as Saldar with the claimants and PW-7 Nuruddin Shaikh, who was working as clerk in the office of the Sub Registrar, Jalna. He has come to depose about the ready reckoner prevailing for the lands in which acquired land was situated i.e. of village Bathan. Zone No.3. He has deposed about the rate of the acquired land as per the said ready reckoner which is stated to be Rs.1.50.000/- per Hectare in the year 1989 treating the acquired land to be yielding sugar cane crop. Zone No.3. He has deposed about the rate of the acquired land as per the said ready reckoner which is stated to be Rs.1.50.000/- per Hectare in the year 1989 treating the acquired land to be yielding sugar cane crop. The claimants also relied upon some documentary evidence i.e. receipts of payment of educational cess which is required to be paid for the irrigated land. 7X 12 extracts of the acquired land, electric bills paid for the use of motor pumps installed on the well and also the award of the S.L.A.O. in which some of tile sale instances were not considered by the S.LAO. 7. The State has also led evidence of two witnesses in defence. They are RW1 Abhay Patil who is Talathi Incharge of the records of acquired land and RW-2 Abasaheb Ujgare, the successor S.L.A.O. of S.L.A.O. office at Jalna. His Predecessor has passed the award impugned in the Reference. 8. With this evidence the claimants and the Respondent State sought to prove their contentions. 9. Learned A.G.P. Shri, Choudhari has submitted that the evidence led by the claimants is oral evidence. The documentary evidence is not Supporting the claimants. There is no dispute regarding the quality of the land however all the land is not perennially irrigated land as held by the Reference Court. The compensation has been awarded by the S.L.A.O. as per prevailing market rates. It was just and fair. The Reference Court has awarded the compensation at a very exorbitant rate. In fact all the land cannot be treated as perennially irrigated land and the rate of the said land cannot be Rs.1.10.000/- per Hectare as held by the Reference Court. He has relied on some Authorities to contend that the ready reckoner cannot be treated as the basis for coming to the conclusion of the market value of the land. He has also relied on some Authorities to contend that the compensation of the trees, wells etc. could not be awarded when the land is treated as an irrigated land. According to him, there were only two wells and two electric motor pumps of only 5 H.P.s installed on those wells. If this fact is borne in mind, whole land cannot be treated as irrigated by these two well water only with the help of two motor pumps of 5 H.P., which is apparently not possible. According to him, there were only two wells and two electric motor pumps of only 5 H.P.s installed on those wells. If this fact is borne in mind, whole land cannot be treated as irrigated by these two well water only with the help of two motor pumps of 5 H.P., which is apparently not possible. According to him, even Potkharab land was treated as irrigated land by the learned Reference Judge and such wholesale rate of perennially irrigated land could not be made applicable to all land under acquisition as the same is not supported by any documentary evidence on record. Oral evidence being the evidence of interested witnesses, the same cannot be relied upon for drawing inference of market value of the land, unless the same is supported by the documentary evidence. As such, according to him, the Judgment and A ward of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside by allowing the Appeal and rejecting the Cross-Objection. 10. Shri. Kakade, learned counsel for the Respondents/original claimants has submitted that the Reference Court had awarded the compensation at a very low rate i.e. RS.I, I 0,000/- per Hectare in fact the compensation should have been awarded at the rate of Rs.1.50.000/- per Hectare and therefore in Cross-Objection the enhanced rate by Rs.40,000/- per Hectare is claimed. He further submitted that the whole of the land under acquisition is rightly treated as perennially irrigated land. There were two wells which were permanent wells and one another well which was temporary. These were sufficient to irrigate the whole land in as much as there were electric pumps of sufficient power for supplying the water to the land; so also there was pipe line installed. There was a farm house and as such whole land was rightly treated as perennially irrigated land by the Reference Court. He has contended that the very evidence of the Talathi i.e. RW 1 Abhay Patil was the best evidence available and his evidence has in fact supported the claim of the claimants. According to him, Talathi's (Abhay Patil) evidence shows that whole land was perennially irrigated land as educational cess was recovered only from irrigated land, as in this case. He contended that no evidence was led by the Respondent State to support the reasons in the Award recorded by the S.L.A.O. In fact RW2 Abasaheb Ujgare had not visited the acquired land. He contended that no evidence was led by the Respondent State to support the reasons in the Award recorded by the S.L.A.O. In fact RW2 Abasaheb Ujgare had not visited the acquired land. He was successor of the S.L.A.O. who had prepared the award and therefore he could not have deposed on the merits of the award. According to him, the annual income from the acquired land was considered by the learned Reference Court and as the case of the claimants was based on "income capitalization method" for assessing the market value of the land, the learned Reference Court though had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1.10,000/- per Hectare had really erred in not granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50,000/- per R. as the market value of the acquired land to the same tune was reflected by the ready reckoner and evidence of PW-7 Nuruddin Shaikh, who was noneless than the clerk from Sub Registrar office. He has also relied on some Authorities to contend that the evidence led by the claimants was in tune and substantiating the case of the claimants raised in the Reference and as such the Reference Court should have awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.l,50,000/- per Hectare, besides for wells, pipe line and farm house. He has submitted that the oral evidence led by the claimants do show that there were three rooms in the farm house and it was good cement structure, for which compensation should have been awarded. He has also contended that the sale instances referred by the S.L.A.O. in his Award which were of higher side to indicate the market value of the acquired land to be of Rs.1 50,000/-. But he did not accept the same and therefore his A ward was rightly discarded by the Reference Court. He has also contended that RW2 Abasaheb Djgare could not prove the contents of the A ward and therefore the sale instances relied by the S.L.A.O. cannot be considered by the Court for assessment of the market value of the land. As such according to him the State Appeal should be dismissed and Cross-Objection should be allowed. 11. It clearly seems that the claimants have relied upon the method of income capitalization for calculating the market value of the land. No experts or sale instances evidence was led. As such according to him the State Appeal should be dismissed and Cross-Objection should be allowed. 11. It clearly seems that the claimants have relied upon the method of income capitalization for calculating the market value of the land. No experts or sale instances evidence was led. The Claimants are also trying to take the help from the ready reckoner of Mouje Bathan for requiring the Court to draw the inference as regards market value of the land. According to the claimants, whole land is rightly treated as perennially irrigated land and therefore compensation should have been granted at the rate which is stated by PW-7 Nuruddin Shaikh supported by the evidence of RW 1 Abhay Patil (evidence led by State). 12. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties as regards to applicability of ready reckoner for determining the market price of the land suffice it to say that the ready reckoner issued by the State is for the purposes of calculating and collecting stamp duties. It is not relevant for determining the market value of the land: In this regard the Judgments of the Apex Court in (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 62, K. S. Shivadevamma and others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, and the Judgments of this Court in 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 310 : [2005(3) ALL MR 430], Prasad nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 431 : [2008(1) ALL MR 194], Sharadchandra s/o Narayanrao Padgilwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, may be referred. In (1996)2 Supreme Court Cases, 62, K. S. Shrivadevamma and others Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, supra, the Apex Court has observed thus:- "Though the appellants have relied upon the government circular determining the value of the lands for the purpose of fixing stamp duty and registration fee and also the Commissioner's report regarding the valuation assessed by him the High court rightly has not accepted them. This Court also had held that the circulars issued by the Government under Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act for fixation of stamp duty and the registration fee would not form basis to determine the compensation unless evidence is adduced as regards the prevailing market value of the land in the locality possessed of similar advantageous features. Even the Commissioners assessment is his 'best judgment assessment'. Even the Commissioners assessment is his 'best judgment assessment'. Therefore, it cannot form the basis to determine the market value." In 2005(2) Mh.L.J. 310 , Prasadnagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra. Supra, it was held by this Court that Ready Reckoner prepared for the purpose of evaluating the market value of the property is to be treated only as a guide-line and a declaration of 'prima facie' market value. It is for calculation of stamp duty and as such the same cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the land. Similar is the view taken by this Court in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 431 . Sharadchandra s/o Narayanrao Padgilwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. 13. No doubt. PW-7 Nuruddin Shaikh has deposed that the rates mentioned in the data which he is going to produce are the rates prevailing in 1989, he further stated that if the land revenue assessment is Rs.58.80 ps. for the land admeasuring 18 Hectare 77 R yielding sugar cane crop then such land must fetch price at the rate of Rs. 1.50,000/- per Hectare in the year 1989, In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that the above directives are for the purpose of calculating stamp duties for the registration of the conveyance and it cannot show correct market price. It is in dispute in the present case as to whether whole of the land was perennially irrigated land. Therefore, this evidence is hardly helpful to the claimants as his statement as regards market value is a conditional statement that if the assessment is Rs,58,80 ps. for the land admeasuring J 8 Hectare 77 R yielding sugar cane crop then only this market value would be there. It is not established by the claimants that whole land was yielding sugar cane crop and it had assessment of Rs,58.80 ps, for whole of the land. How, we would indicate later, but as this evidence is in respect of only ready reckoner, in view of the above judicial pronouncements, the same cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of the land to the tune of Rs, 1,50,000/per Hectare as contended by the claimants. 14. How, we would indicate later, but as this evidence is in respect of only ready reckoner, in view of the above judicial pronouncements, the same cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of the land to the tune of Rs, 1,50,000/per Hectare as contended by the claimants. 14. As regards evidence of State witness RWI Abhay Patil, he has stated that land Gat No,92 of 7XI2 extract (Exh,18) is black soil land, it is perennially irrigated land and the wells situated in the land Gat No,92 had sufficient water. Ex facie it may sound that whole land can be considered as perennially irrigated land and the well water to be sufficient for irrigating that land, however, that would not be a correct and conclusive inference as this witness has further stated that the sufficiency of water depends upon the rains, as he has volunteered that it depends upon the rains, Further his evidence seems to be based on 7XI2 extract which does not show that whole of the land is perennially irrigated land, Surprisingly, it is not pointed out that this 7XI2 extract shows that whole land was perennially irrigated land and whole of it was producing sugar cane crop. This witness was cross-examined to show that the educational cess was in respect of perennially irrigated land and as the receipts of the cess are produced being Exhibits 21 to 28, for recovery of the educational cess, and as such whole of the land should be treated as perennially irrigated land. On perusal of the said receipts Exhibits 21 to 28, it would be seen that those receipts are regarding payment of educational cess for the year 1988-89 to 199091. They are issued on 11/5/1991. The Notification in the present case is dated 16/5/1989. In our opinion, therefore, these receipts would not have conclusive value as regards the quality of the land for holding whole land to be perennially irrigated land, The said receipts are not free from doubts. In cross-examination, the date of these receipts is not suggested, The educational cess seems to have been paid in arrears for the year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, It is also not clear from these receipts as to whether these receipts were for whole land. 15. In cross-examination, the date of these receipts is not suggested, The educational cess seems to have been paid in arrears for the year 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91, It is also not clear from these receipts as to whether these receipts were for whole land. 15. Therefore, though R WI Abhay Patil has admitted that the educational cess is recovered from the agriculturists for the purpose of crops from irrigated land, in the present case, that would not help the claimants for coming to the conclusion that whole of the acquired land was perennially irrigated land, in the above circumstances. 16. Turning to the evidence regarding the receipts of payments of electrical charges in respect of the motor pumps, the claimants had relied on the same which are produced on record, It would be seen from Exhibits 19 and 20 that said bills are of 30/10/1979, Said bills are in the name of Rajendra Kumar Punamchand and Ashok Punamchand, It is not known nor it is apparent from those bills that those are in respect of the electric consumption for the electric motor pumps installed on the wells in the agricultural lands, They do not show that the pumps are of 5 H.P, as contended by the claimants. In fact those bills are of the year 1979. There are no bills of the relevant years produced by the claimants on record. As nothing is pointed out as to why those bills could not be produced the bills of 1979 i.e. much prior to the acquisition of the land would have no binding evidentiary value. The evidence of the claimant in this regard and the so-called admissions of the Respondent witnesses. would also be of no help to the claimants in this regard. 17. Learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants has contended that there are two big wells with 5 H.P. electrical motor pumps installed on two wells and there is one well on which diesel engine was installed for irrigation purpose. However, this is not established. Oral evidence in this regard. is obviously the evidence of the interested witnesses and therefore it cannot be said to be of conclusive nature for want of support of documentary evidence on record. We have already indicated as to how documentary evidence produced by the claimants on record, does not support the claimants. However, this is not established. Oral evidence in this regard. is obviously the evidence of the interested witnesses and therefore it cannot be said to be of conclusive nature for want of support of documentary evidence on record. We have already indicated as to how documentary evidence produced by the claimants on record, does not support the claimants. It was for the claimants to prove that this well water, electric pumps, pipe line was sufficient to irrigate whole of the land as considerable part of the acquired land has been held to be so. 18. This takes us to consider one interesting submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the acquired land was possessed by four claimants and four claimants had equal share in the said landed property; and unless the whole of the land was of the same quality i.e. of perennially irrigated land each of the claimant would not have taken the same and similar share for the obvious reasons. According to him, had there been different types of lands in the acquired land, as found by the S.L.A.O., the shares of the claimants would not be 1/4th each and their shares would be different. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to see the 7X 12 extract. No doubt the four equal share is shown to be belonging to each of the claimant. Fact remains that it only depicts the proportion of the shares of the claimants in the acquired land. It does not show that the said land was divided into four parts separately belonging to one claimant. Had there been such division of each claimant in the acquired land, perhaps the contention of the claimants counsel could have some bearing. As it appears that there was no actual division of the land, it cannot be said that merely because each of the claimant had 1/4th share in the property, the whole land was of the same type i.e. perennially irrigated land. This could have been confirmed only after the division of the said land into four equal parts. Therefore, this contention is liable to be rejected. 19. This takes us to consider the oral evidence led by the claimants. Admittedly, the claimants have relied upon the income capitalization method for asking the Reference Court to draw the inference as regards market value of the land. Therefore, this contention is liable to be rejected. 19. This takes us to consider the oral evidence led by the claimants. Admittedly, the claimants have relied upon the income capitalization method for asking the Reference Court to draw the inference as regards market value of the land. Needless to state that in such cases the annual income of the land has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence. Such evidence should not be too general in the nature as the compensation is to be paid to the claimants. No doubt the land of the claimants in such cases is acquired against the will of the claimants, but then the compensation is to be paid from the public exchequer. Therefore, though reasonable, just and proper compensation in accordance with law is expected to be awarded, it cannot be on the basis of the general evidence and assessments and surmises and assumptions, though some reasonable guess work is permissible. Concrete evidence as regards annual income from the land, for the calculation of compensation has to be led for the determination of the market value which has to be based on reasonable and acceptable evidence. In this case. some part of the land rather major part of the land has been held to be seasonally irrigated and perennials irrigated land. Therefore, it was bounden duty of the claimants to prove that all land under acquisition was perennially irrigated land. General contention is raised on the basis of the experience as there were two big wells where two electric motors of 5 H.P. were installed, that could irrigate whole of the land. However, the evidence of RW1 Abhay Patil sought to be relied by the claimants, is otherwise, as it leads to the conclusion that sufficiency of the water in the well depends upon the rains. Therefore, it cannot be held that the said well water was sufficient to irrigate whole of the land for making it to treat as perennially irrigated land. The quality of the land being of black soil is not disputed. Only dispute is regarding the land i.e. whole of the land being perennially irrigated land. As such whether the other evidence led by claimants leads to that conclusion, needs to be seen. 20. The quality of the land being of black soil is not disputed. Only dispute is regarding the land i.e. whole of the land being perennially irrigated land. As such whether the other evidence led by claimants leads to that conclusion, needs to be seen. 20. We have already pointed out that the documentary evidence produced by the claimants is not of conclusive value to indicate the fact that all the land under acquisition, was perennially irrigated land. On perusal of the evidence of claimants witness PW-1 Gautam i.e. one of the claimant. it would be seen that he had stated that they were getting yield of 50 tonnes of sugar cane per acre and they were cultivating sugar cane in about 15 acres land. They were spending Rs.20.000/- per acre for the sugar cane crop. They were taking yield of cotton in the area about 15 to 20 acres out of the acquired land and they were spending Rs.6.000/- to Rs. 7.000/- per acre for the cotton crop. He has stated that he is not having any account books of the relevant years. He has stated that they were getting Rs.2.00.000/- from vegetables. He has deposed as to how the sugar cane was sold and to whom, so also the fruits. However the claimant did not produce any evidence on record to show the expenditure incurred by them for getting the production of the sugar cane and cotton to the tune as alleged. No account books are produced. No doubt there is no searching cross-examination on these issues and only suggestions given by the learned D.G.P. were denied. Fact remains that the claimant's evidence is evidence of an interested witness and unless there is some supporting material on record, same cannot be relied on for drawing the material conclusions. The documents relating sale of the sugar cane, cotton or the expenditure for getting that production, have not been produced. This certainly reflects on the case of the claimants and adverse inference would be justified. 21. Turning to the evidence of PW-2 Ramesh Devawale, it would be seen that he is alleged to be purchaser of the sugar-cane for doing the business of Raswanti. i.e. "Juice Stalls" on Roads. He states that he was purchasing truck load of sugar cane. This certainly reflects on the case of the claimants and adverse inference would be justified. 21. Turning to the evidence of PW-2 Ramesh Devawale, it would be seen that he is alleged to be purchaser of the sugar-cane for doing the business of Raswanti. i.e. "Juice Stalls" on Roads. He states that he was purchasing truck load of sugar cane. It is difficult to believe that he would be purchasing sugar cane and supplying it to other Raswanti holders to such a large quantity. In cross-examination. the suggestion about his deposing false was denied. He has stated that he was carrying sugar cane in the truck, but no documentary evidence to that effect produced. He has also stated that he was purchasing sugar cane from different places worth Rs.50.ooo/per annum, however no documentary evidence came forth. Admittedly no other witnesses to whom he was selling the sugar cane for Raswanti purpose, are examined. It is difficult to believe that when claimants were producing such a large quantity of sugar cane, they would be selling it only to the Raswanti holders i.e. Juice Stalls. In our considered opinion, such type of evidence cannot lead to the conclusion that the claimants were producing such a huge quantity of sugarcane from the land. Needless to state that inferences from personal experience as informed by the learned counsel for the Respondent cannot be drawn. 22. Adverting to the evidence of PW- 3 Ratnamalabai Jagdhane, she deposed about whole of the case of the claimants in the Reference. She stated that she is having 10 Acres of land on the Southern side of the acquired land. No searching cross-examination is done by the Appellant's learned counsel i.e. D.G.P. However, for the reasons indicated earlier, as documentary evidence does not support the case of the claimants, this evidence is also far from acceptance. She also did not produce any documentary evidence regarding her income from her field. Apart from it, though the claimants case is based on income capitalization method for calculating the market value of the land, this witness does not specifically state about the possible annual income from sugarcane production, fruits production and cotton production. In our opinion. Therefore, her mere say that the claimants were getting handsome income, would not be sufficient. 23. Apart from it, though the claimants case is based on income capitalization method for calculating the market value of the land, this witness does not specifically state about the possible annual income from sugarcane production, fruits production and cotton production. In our opinion. Therefore, her mere say that the claimants were getting handsome income, would not be sufficient. 23. This take us to consider the evidence of PW-4 Sheshrao Jagdhane, who is also owner of the agricultural land adjacent to the land under acquisition. His evidence also suffers from the same vice and infirmities as that of PW-3 Ratnamalabai Jagdhane. PW-5 Shaikh Lalmiya has deposed about purchase of fruits from the claimants. He had stated that he has purchased fruits of all the ten mango trees for Rs.27.000/- and he was also purchasing tamarind and her from claimants for Rs.3.500/ -to Rs.4.000/-. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestions. Again we are required to say that there was no sufficient cross-examination to this witness. But fact remains that though this witness was purchasing mango fruits from the field of the claimants, no documentary evidence was produced. He could have produced the account books or hand entries. It is needless to state that when such a large purchases are made and consequent sale of the fruits are expected, the person would definitely maintain the account books and if necessary can produce it before the Court to substantiate his testimony. 24. PW-6 Bhaskar Jagdhane is only a Saldar (labourer on annual contract) admittedly working with the claimants. It goes without saying that though he stated about the production of the sugar-cane etc. from the acquired land, and only suggestions of State counsel are denied by the witness, Suffice it to say that his evidence is not free from doubt. 25. We have already discussed evidence ofPW-7 Nuruddin Shaikh, clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, about the ready reckoner. We have also found that his evidence that market price of the acquired land would be Rs.1,50.000/- is far from acceptance. 26. Thus, in this view of the matter it goes without saying that the claimants have failed to lead necessary evidence to justify the inferences as drawn by the learned Reference Court in their favour. We have also found that his evidence that market price of the acquired land would be Rs.1,50.000/- is far from acceptance. 26. Thus, in this view of the matter it goes without saying that the claimants have failed to lead necessary evidence to justify the inferences as drawn by the learned Reference Court in their favour. We may express that non production of material evidence in the shape of documents would hit the case of the claimants for justifying the enhanced compensation before the Reference Court. 27. Needless to state that in view of 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 403 : [2007(5) ALL MR 711 (F.B.)] State of Maharashtra Vs. Parshram Jagannath Aute, and 2008(6) Mh.LJ. 24 : [2008(4) ALL MR 506), State of Maharashtra Vs. Nivrutti Tukaram Bhagwat and others, the burden of proof to prove the entitlement to receive higher compensation as claimed in the Reference is upon the claimants. It is essential that each case would have to be examined on its own facts by scrutinising the evidence led by the claimant or the State as the case may be. It cannot be stated as an absolute proposition of law that no onus lies on the State, but whenever the claimants have led evidence though some onus lies on the State to produce the counter evidence if so desired, but primarily the onus always lies on the claimant. When there is no documentary evidence to support the oral evidence on record and the documentary evidence, which is filed by the claimant on record in support of the oral testimony, is found to be not reliable, it will have to be held that the claimants have not proved their claim for enhanced compensation. Inaction whatsoever on the part of the State, though it is depricable, can not help the claimants, in this regard. 28. We have already pointed out that evidence of RW 1 Abhay Patil to some extent instead of supporting the case of the Appellant State, seems to support the case of the claimants as regards quality of the land. But the claimants cannot rely on that evidence much less because it does not give any indication about the market value of the land. But the claimants cannot rely on that evidence much less because it does not give any indication about the market value of the land. As stated by the learned counsel for the Respondents and rightly, the evidence of RW2 Abasaheb Ujgare cannot lead to the conclusion regarding the proof of the facts mentioned in the A ward passed by the S.L.A.O., in as much as he has not visited or inspected the acquired land. 29. Learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants have relied on following Authorities:- 1) A.I.R. 1993 Bombay 361, Asstt. Development Officer, Trombay Vs. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori, 2) (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 693, State of Gujarat and others Vs. Rama Rana and others, 3) (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 662 : [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 293], Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary Vs. S. T. Pompanna Shelly, 4) 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 416: [2007 ALL SCR 953], Land Acquisition Onker, A.P. Vs. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao and another, 5) 2008(3) Bom.C.R.181 : [2008(2) ALL MR 490], State of Maharashtra and another Vs. Valu Yesu Suryavanshi (Nhavi) and others. 30. On perusal of these Authorities it would be seen that the principles therein would not be attracted in as much as the claimants have failed to prove the possible annual aggregate income from the acquired land and consequent to it, the market value of the land. There cannot be any dispute that the multiplier of ten can be considered for assessing the market value of the land if annual income from the land is proved, but it is not in the present case. The evidence led by the claimants suffers from lack of credibility and exactness, therefore the claim as made by the claimants should not have been allowed by the Reference Court; though there was certain lack of diligence on the part of the Appellant State to lead proper evidence. We are of the opinion that even, the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.10.000/- per Hectare to the claimants is not justified on such evidence leave alone the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.50.000/- per Hectare. The assumption of learned Reference Judge in this regard IS clearly unwarranted and unsubstantiated. 31. As regards the compensation for the fruit bearing trees the compensation has been granted on the basis of some land being treated as irrigated land. The assumption of learned Reference Judge in this regard IS clearly unwarranted and unsubstantiated. 31. As regards the compensation for the fruit bearing trees the compensation has been granted on the basis of some land being treated as irrigated land. It is the case of the Appellant State that all these fruit bearing trees were situated in the area of irrigated land as held by the S.L.A.O. and therefore in view of 2005 AIR SCW 345 : [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 293] Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shelly, the claimants would not be entitled for the compensation for fruit bearing trees. It is needless to mention that the Appellants have not proved positively that all these fruit bearing trees were from the irrigated area of the acquired land only. Further the compensation by the S.L.A.O. is not calculated on the annual yield basis. Therefore, observations in the decision cited would not be applicable. In our opinion the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court for fruit bearing trees, cannot be said to be unwarranted, in the facts and circumstances of case. 32. As regards the claim of compensation for pipe line suffice it to say that once the compensation is awarded for seasonally irrigated land and irrigated land the claimants would not be entitled to claim compensation on the installation of pipe line more so because no such extra expenditure has been proved by the claimants. In our opinion there should have been clinching evidence regarding the expenditure for installation of the pipe line. Mere say that pipe line to the extent alleged was installed in the acquired land, would not justify the award of compensation in this regard. 33. The same is the case in respect of the alleged claim of compensation for farm house. In our opinion, the learned Referee Court has rightly rejected the claim of the compensation for farm house. The compensation has been awarded for irrigated land and seasonally irrigated land at the enhanced rate than that of Jirayat land and as there is no material on record to assess the cost of construction of the wells, the claimants would not be entitled for separate compensation in respect of the wells. 34. The compensation has been awarded for irrigated land and seasonally irrigated land at the enhanced rate than that of Jirayat land and as there is no material on record to assess the cost of construction of the wells, the claimants would not be entitled for separate compensation in respect of the wells. 34. All the reasons indicated above would lead to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation only in respect of fruit bearing trees and not for the acquired land at the rates they had sought. As the evidence of the claimants in this regard has been held to be not sufficient to prove their case for enhancement in the Reference Court, only Award in that behalf passed by the S.L.A.O. need to be in subsistence, for which the claimants would be entitled. As regards fruit bearing trees, the claimants would be entitled for the award as accorded by the learned Reference Court. Rest of the claim of the claimants. i.e. for pipe line, farm house and wells, is rejected. 35. In sequel therefore, the Appeal of the State needs to be allowed as indicated. The Cross-Objection of the Respondents claimants has to be dismissed. Compensation, if any, paid in pursuance to the A ward of the Reference Court, shall be liable to be refunded to the State, after necessary calculations in pursuance of the above Order. Ordered accordingly. There would be no order as to the costs. Ordered accordingly.