Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned AGP Mr. Manisha Narsinghani for appellants and Mr. Krunal D. Pandya, learned Advocate for respondents claimants in this group of appeals. 2. By filing these appeals, appellants have challenged award passed by reference Court Bharuch in LAR Case No. 74 to 112 of 1997 (Main LAR No. 74/97) Exh. 178 dated 30.4.2005 wherein reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to get market price of their acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 36.50 ps. Per sq. mtrs. as additional compensation with other usual benefits. Lands of claimants were acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 3.11.1993 and awarded Rs. 2.20 ps. Per sq mtr. Under LAQ No. 27/91 and, therefore, aforesaid references were made at the instance of claimants under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Acquired lands were of the same village and vicinity and acquired under LAQ Case No. 27/91, therefore, as per Exh.10 application made on behalf of claimants, matters were consolidated and evidence was recorded in main LAR No. 74 of 1997 which have been decided by reference Court vide aforesaid common judgment and award. 3. Ms. Manisha Narsinghani, learned AGP for appellants submitted that the reference Court ought to have seen that the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to support their claim of additional compensation. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have appreciated that the claimants have accepted compensation awarded without any objection. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have seen that the award was made by land acquisition officer after considering the fertility of land, location of land, development of nearby areas etc. She further submitted that the reference Court has erred in awarding additional compensation of Rs. 36.50 per square meter committed serious error and not followed the established principles of determining the compensation as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act. She further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that after taking into consideration all factors, compensation was fixed and burden was upon the claimant to show how award of land acquisition officer was not correct. She further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that after taking into consideration all factors, compensation was fixed and burden was upon the claimant to show how award of land acquisition officer was not correct. She further submitted that the reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the land acquisition officer has considered location of each piece of land, prevailing market rates, type of land and other relevant factors, nature of land, area, level and development of the land and have considered the sale instances of last five years. It was also her submission that the impugned award made by reference Court is not in accordance with well established principles for determination of market value of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have appreciated that at the time of fixing the market value of the land, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered various factors and thereafter has declared his award. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Krunal Pandya appearing for respondent claimants has made submission while supporting impugned award that this Court has considered First Appeal No. 2686 of 2007 to First Appeal No. 2693 of 2007 by order dated 13th February, 2009 wherein award made by reference Court Bharuch in LAR No. 2822 to 2829 of 1997 Exh. 126 dated 5th March, 2005 awarding additional compensation of Rs. 36.50 per square meter in Compensation Case No. 71 of 1994 was under challenge. He further submitted that in the said matter, Reference Court has considered the previous award in respect to village Ikkhar Exh.74 and Exh.75 passed in LAR Case Nos.400 to 408 of 1992 and LAR Case No. 1179 to 1205 of 1992 and 1993 and the Notification under Section-4 in respect to Ikkhar village of previous award was dated 14.6.1990. He further submitted that this Court has dismissed said appeals filed by the State authority relying upon the previous award passed in respect of village Ikkhar as well as also considered market price of acquired land of village Danda on the basis of yield method after deducting cultivation costs. Learned AGP Ms. Manisha Narsinghani raised contention pointing out difference in respect to section 4 notification. Learned AGP Ms. Manisha Narsinghani raised contention pointing out difference in respect to section 4 notification. She further submitted that in respect to village Ikkhar which has been relied upon, date of section 4 notification is 14th June, 1990 and decision of this Court is dated 13.2.2009 in First Appeal No. 2686 to 2693 of 2007 wherein section 4 notification is dated 25.7.1995.She further submitted that in this group of appeals, section 4 notification is dated 28.10.91 and section 6 notification is dated 14.5.1992 and, therefore, that much amount is to be reduced at the rate of 10 per cent for a period of four years from 1991 to 1995. As against that submission, learned Advocate Mr. Pandya for claimants submitted that in this group of appeals, reference Court has decided market price on the basis of yield method after deducting 50 per cent cultivation costs. He submitted that when reference Court has examined matter on the basis of having income by claimants from concerned land, question of deduction of 10 per cent on the basis of difference of date of section 4 notification does not arise. As against that, learned AGP Ms. Manisha Narsinghani submited that in respect to consideration of price, reference Court has considered value available in the year 1995-96 and, therefore, when section 4 notification is taken into account, then, whatever price for sugarcane is available, in the year 1991-92 is to be taken into account but instead of that, reference Court has considered price of sugarcane prevailing in the year 1995-96 and thereafter deducted 50 per cent cultivation costs and, therefore, compensation of Rs. 36.50 awarded by reference Court is on higher side to that extent and same is required to be reduced by 10 per cent for four years. 5. Before dealing with the submissions made by both learned advocates and after perusing the impugned award, it is necessary to consider certain principles which have been decided by Apex Court how to fix or determine market price of the lands acquired by the State of Gujarat for public purpose. Such decisions of the Apex Court laying down such principles are as under: 6. Recently, the Apex Court has considered certain principles and guidelines in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, U. K. Project vs. Mahaboob & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) Scale 263 , Para 7 to 9 are quoted as under: “7. Such decisions of the Apex Court laying down such principles are as under: 6. Recently, the Apex Court has considered certain principles and guidelines in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, U. K. Project vs. Mahaboob & Anr. reported in 2009 (3) Scale 263 , Para 7 to 9 are quoted as under: “7. We may now advert to the facts of this case. The acquisition is of the year 1990. The extent of land acquired is 1 acre 13 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per acre which is about nine paise per sq. ft. Not much argument is needed to show that the compensation was very low. The total compensation as per the award of the LAO made in 1991, was Rs. 5300/- (excluding statutory additions). Having lost his land, and consequently,the means of livelihood, the land loser had to engage a lawyer and fight for a reasonable compensation by seeking reference to the Court. The reference Court determined the compensation as Rs. 30,420/- per acre on 10/3/2005. This means an increase of about Rs. 35,000/- in compensation (plus statutory additions) for the acquired land. But the land loser was not given this amount. The State Government files a first appeal, then a second appeal and then a SLP. The result is except the paltry amount which he must have received when the LAO made the award, the land loser has not received any compensation for nearly 17 years and had to fight the litigation before three courts for a total compensation of Rs. 40000/- (excluding statutory benefits). Apart from the fact that the land loser would have spent virtually the entire amount for litigation, whatever amount he may ultimately receive will not get him even one fourth or one fifth of the extent of land which he lost by acquisition. Unless the process of acquisition gives him a reasonable compensation either at the time of or immediately after the dispossession, the compensation will be a mirage for most land losers. 8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. 8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable 10 land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors(LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the ‘safer’side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil Court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference Court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition. The effect may be highlighted by the following illustration: A farmer owns 3 acres of land in a village, which is his sole means of livelihood. The land is acquired for some project in the year 1990. The true market value of the land was around Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre in 1990. If he got the said price, that is, Rs. 4,50,000/- with solatium, additional amount and interest in the year 1991, he has a reasonable opportunity of purchasing some alternative land, so that he can eke out his livelihood and continue to live with dignity. But this rarely happens in practice. 1,50,000/- per acre in 1990. If he got the said price, that is, Rs. 4,50,000/- with solatium, additional amount and interest in the year 1991, he has a reasonable opportunity of purchasing some alternative land, so that he can eke out his livelihood and continue to live with dignity. But this rarely happens in practice. The final notification is made in 1992 and the LAO makes an award in the year 1993 offering Rs. 50,000/- per acre. So the land loser is constrained to seek a reference to the court. The reference Court takes three to four years to decide the reference and increases the compensation to Rs. one lakh per acre in the year 1996. The increased amount is deposited in 1997-1998. The land loser is constrained to file a further appeal to the High Court and the High Court takes another three to four years and increases the compensation to Rs. 1.5 lakh per acre in the year 2000 and such increase is deposited in the year 2001-02. That is, the loser is forced to fight at least in two courts to get the compensation commensurate with the market value of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre. To add to his woes, when the reference Court or the High Court increases the compensation, the government does not pay the increased amount immediately and drives him to execution proceedings also. This means that the land owner gets compensation piecemeal, that is Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 1993, another Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 1997-98, and another Rs. 50,000/- per acre in 2001-02. At every stage he has to incur expenses for litigation. As he does not get the full compensation in one lump sum, he is not in a position to purchase an alternative land. When the land is acquired, he loses his means of livelihood, as he knows no other type of work. The result is, he is forced to spend the compensation received in piecemeal, on sustenance of his family when he fights the legal battles for increasing the compensation and for recovering the increases granted, by levying execution. The result is that whatever compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. The result is that whatever compensation is received piecemeal, gets spent for the sustenance of the family, and litigation cost during the course of prolonged litigation. At the end of the legal battle, he is hardly left with any money to purchase alternative land and by then the prices of land would have also increased manifold, making it impossible to purchase even a fraction of the land which he originally possessed. Illiteracy, ignorance, and lack of counselling add to his woes and the piecemeal compensation is dissipated leaving him with neither land, nor money to buy alternative land, nor any means of livelihood. In short, he is stripped of his land and livelihood. 9. When large areas are acquired, unless some effort is made by all the wings of government to ensure prompt payment of realistic compensation with appropriate rehabilitation measures, land acquisitions lead to great tragedy and ruination of poor families. We may, at the risk of stating the obvious, refer to the following steps if taken within the frame work of existing laws may provide considerable succour to the land loser: (a) Collector/LAO should offer compensation which is reasonable and realistic and very near to value. (b) Whenever courts increase the compensation, instead of mechanically filing appeals in all cases, or delaying payments without apparent reason, an effort should be made to pay the increases awarded by Court promptly. (c) The government and/or beneficiaries of acquisition should encourage and resort to negotiations to arrive at a mutually acceptable amount of compensation. (d) Avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, identification of alternative lands, may be explored and implemented. When large tracts of lands belonging to several land owners are acquired by development authorities for formation of residential or commercial layouts, schemes may be formulated which contemplate 25% to 30% of the land area being used for roads amenities and open spaces, and utilize the remaining area which is developed into plots, by selling about one-third by auction to recover the development cost, by allotting about one-third to poor or needy at costprice, and by releasing/allotting about one- third area to the land losers whose lands were acquired. Some development authorities have reduced land acquisition litigation considerably either by entering into negotiated consent awards or formulating schemes for sharing the developed area with the land losers. Others may emulate them with appropriate modifications.” 7. Some development authorities have reduced land acquisition litigation considerably either by entering into negotiated consent awards or formulating schemes for sharing the developed area with the land losers. Others may emulate them with appropriate modifications.” 7. The second recent decision of Apex Court in case of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO vs. Sahik Azam Saheb etc. etc. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1515. The relevant Para 11 to 13 are quoted as under: “11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors; the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road or highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land. 12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing tress and the yield therefrom. 13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. 13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , namely: Positive factors Negative factors (i) Smallness of size (i) Largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) Nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring the area depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) Remoteness from developed locality (vi) Level vis-a-vis land (vi) Some Special disadvantages under acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. 8. The Apex Court has also considered similar aspect in case of General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another reported in 2009 (2) MLJ page 78 (SC). Relevant observation made in above referred decision is quoted as under: “RATIONES DECIDENDI I. “Primarily the increase in land prices depends on four factors, situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area”. II. “In the absence of any evidence relating to sale transactions or acquisition relating to the village in question and having regard to the evidence relating to proximity of the neighbouring village, the date award in that village would be a reasonable basis for determining the market value.” III. “The rate of escalation in market value between 1987 and 1992 at 10% per annum as held by the decisions and relied on by the claimants related to urban and semi urban lands under acquisition and cannot be adopted in the case of rural lands. The logical practical and appropriate method is to apply the increase cumulatively and not at flat rate.” IV. “It may not be sale to determine the market value of acquired land with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. The logical practical and appropriate method is to apply the increase cumulatively and not at flat rate.” IV. “It may not be sale to determine the market value of acquired land with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of the acquired lands as the very acquisition and the consequential development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices.” In case of Mohammad Faofuddin versus The Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14209 of 2006, decided on 13.4.2009, Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice DK Jain & Hon’ble Mr. Justice RM Lodha) observed as under in Paras 7 to 15: 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court as well as the High Court erred in ignoring a decree of the Court (Ex. A.6) which was tendered in evidence by the appellant. It was pointed out that appellant’s land was acquired at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre whereas in respect of another strip of land situated only 100 yards away from his land, acquired about two years back, compensation was paid at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard. In support of the proposition that a judgment of the Court in a land acquisition case, determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter partes, could be admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Pal Singh & Ors. vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh1. Learned Counsel strenuously urged that before relying on its earlier decision, the High Court also failed to ascertain whether there was any similarity between the land, subject matter of A.S. 2336 of 1998 and the present suit lands. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the High Court. 8. Learned Counsel strenuously urged that before relying on its earlier decision, the High Court also failed to ascertain whether there was any similarity between the land, subject matter of A.S. 2336 of 1998 and the present suit lands. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the High Court. 8. Before we enter into the merits of the case, we may note a few broad principles to be kept in view while determining the amount of compensation payable on acquisition of land for a public purpose. 9. Section 15 of the Act mandates that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, (1992) 4 SCC 400 . Section 23 contains the list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negatives, vis-a-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation, the first step being the determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. One of the principles for determination of the market value of the acquired land would be the price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in the open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. But finding a direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and, therefore, the Court has to take recourse to other known methods for arriving at the market value of the land acquired. One of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. The lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise. 10. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise. 10. In Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. this Court had observed as under: “While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land, (sic) which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 5 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate of the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land”. 11. Yet again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. vs. State of Gujarat, making reference to a number of cases on the point, it was observed as follows: “18. 11. Yet again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. vs. State of Gujarat, making reference to a number of cases on the point, it was observed as follows: “18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase.Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative Factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed (v) lower level requiring area the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. 12. 12. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. 13. The next question is as to the scope of interference by this Court in an award granting compensation. The scope of interference by this Court was delineated by the decision in Kamta Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar4 wherein this Court held that there was an element of guesswork inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. If the judgment of the High Court revealed that it had taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market value thus made should not be disturbed by this Court. 14. The following observations of this Court in Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, Faridkot, Punjab & Ors. vs. Makhan Singh and Anr.5 are quite apposite: “This Court as the last Court of appeal, will ordinarily not interfere in an award granting compensation unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Besides, generally speaking, the appellate Court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. See in this connection, The Dollar Company, Madras vs. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730 . Added thereto are other rules of prudence that the courts do not treat at par land situated on the frontage having special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area, or to compare smaller plots fetching better price with large tracts of land. Added thereto are other rules of prudence that the courts do not treat at par land situated on the frontage having special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area, or to compare smaller plots fetching better price with large tracts of land. See in this connection Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 = AIR 1990 SC 2192 .” 15. Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that this Court can interfere.” In Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board etc. versus KS Gangadharappa & Anr. etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 2549-2553 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12860-12864 of 2007 decided on 15.4.2009, Three Judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Hon’ble Mr. Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam observed as under in Para 6 to 14: 6. It is a trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot formsafe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust [ 1982 (1) SCC 419 ] this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the ‘retail’ price of land and the latter the ‘wholesale’ price. 7. What is to be estimated therefrom is the ‘wholesale’ price of land. In Bombay Improvement Trust vs. Mervanji Manekji Mistry [AIR 1926 Bom 420] Macleod, C.J. Suggested a simple rule: “Valuation cases must be dealt with just as much from the point of view of the hypothetical purchase as of the claimant. The valuation itself must often be more or less a matter of guesswork. But it is obviously wrong to fix upon a valuation which, judged by everyday principles, no purchaser would be ikely to give.... I have always been adverse to elaborate hypothetical calculations which are no more likely to lead to a fair conclusion than far simpler methods. But, in any event, no harm can be done by testing a conclusion arrived at in one way by a conclusion arrived at in another.... A very simple method of valuing land wholesale from retail prices is to take anything between one and half one-third, according to circumstances, of the expected gross valuation, as the wholesale price.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Where a large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta ( AIR 1971 SC 2015 ), Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. Etc. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. Etc. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). 9. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. 10. In the case of Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal (1989 (1) SVLR (C) 399) in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam (AIR 1939 P.C. 98) that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must be disregarded alike; neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality. 11. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 12. It is only when these factors are present, can it merit a consideration as a comparable case (See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore vs. T. dinarayan Setty ( AIR 1959 SC 429 ). 13. These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder Narain and Anr. vs. Union of India ( 2003 (4) SCC 481 ) 14. The deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any strait-jacket formula. It would depend upon the facts of each case.” 10. I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by reference court. According to claimants, their lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Achhod Vishakha Canal. It was their grievance that the compensation awarded by LAO is too meager, unjust and improper considering irrigation facility which were available to the claimants, fertility and potentiality of the acquired lands and also annual yield which claimants were fetching, amount awarded is unjust, improper and illegal. It was their grievance that the compensation awarded by LAO is too meager, unjust and improper considering irrigation facility which were available to the claimants, fertility and potentiality of the acquired lands and also annual yield which claimants were fetching, amount awarded is unjust, improper and illegal. According to claimants, they were cultivating their lands by applying modern techniques as such they were taking two crops in a year like cotton, millet, pigeon pea, niger, kidney bean, vegetables and wheat and were getting Rs. 60,000.00 per acre as a gross income and after deducting 1/4th towards cultivation cost, they were getting Rs. 45000.00 per acre as a net income. It was also their case that as a subsidiary business, they were also maintaining the live stock and were getting income out of milk and that the acquired lands were situated nearby Bharuch Dahej State Highway and Bharuch Jambusar Stat Highway. It was also their case that the vicinity is having industrial potentiality, therefore, ONGC, CPM Gandhar Project, IPCL, GACL Project, Indo Gulf Petroleum Project Pushpa Polymer and Bottling Plant of IOC are established. It was also their case that their village is having services and amenities like kinder garden Madressa, Primary as well as secondary schools, cooperative societies, bank, milk producer society, hospital, post office telephones electrician were available to claimants and their village is also attached to the taluka place by the road. Claimants were therefore claiming that they are entitled for compensation of Rs. 50.00. Before reference Court, present appellants filed written statement Exh. 5 and 7 and opposed contentions of respondents claimants while contending that the award made by LAO is reasonable, just and proper and, therefore reference should be dismissed with costs. Thereafter, documentary evidence produced by claimants was referred to by reference Court as under in Para 6 of award: “6. Before parting with the reasons to the above issues, I would like to mention that the claimants have produced documentary evidence like: (1) Exh.91 to 126 : village form No. 7/12 pertaining to claimants lands. (2) Exh.128 : Distance certificate of village Ikkhar Amod & Danda. (3) Exh.127 : Abstract of kuva Patrak. (4) Exh.129 : Copy of judgments delivered in main LAR No. 405/92 (5) Exh.165 : Price list issued by GaneshKhand Udhyog. (6) Exh.167 : Price list issued by Sarbhan Group Coop. Agri. (2) Exh.128 : Distance certificate of village Ikkhar Amod & Danda. (3) Exh.127 : Abstract of kuva Patrak. (4) Exh.129 : Copy of judgments delivered in main LAR No. 405/92 (5) Exh.165 : Price list issued by GaneshKhand Udhyog. (6) Exh.167 : Price list issued by Sarbhan Group Coop. Agri. Marketing & Producing Society Ltd. for the crops of cotton. (7) Exh.169 : Price list issued by Khatyawadi Product Bazar Samites Karjan. The above are documentary evidence produced on behalf of claimants. On behalf of claimants, following witnesses have been examined : (1) Exh.151 : Mr.Khushalbhai Madhavbhai (2) Exh.164 : Mr. Saiyed Yaqub Mehmood (3) Exh.166: Mr.Govindbhai Ranchhodbhai (4) Exh.168 : Mr. Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai Patel (5) Exh.159 : Mr. Jayantibhai Dahyabhai. So far as the evidence on behalf of the opponent No. 1 is concerned, there is no evidence; However, the opponent No. 2 has produced following documentary evidence. (1) Exh.175 : Copy of 5 years sale instance. (2) Exh.174 : Copy of LAQ No. 27/91 (3) Exh.176 : Copy of village form No. 7/12. No other documentary as well as oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of opponent No. 2.” 9. After recording production of evidence by respective parties as referred to above, reference Court has considered that so far as determination for value of acquired land is concerned, Court can rely upon (1) 5 years sale instances pertaining to the lands of same vicinity; (2) Previous judgment pertaining to lands acquired of the same vicinity; (3) Annual Produce of acquired lands. While considering contention of claimants that their acquired lands were having irrigation facility, reference Court has made mention that no question was put to claimants namely Mr. Khushalbhai Madhavbhai and Mr. Jayantibhai Dayalbhai at Exh. 151 and 159 as to non availability of irrigation facility but award Exh. 175 itself was indicating on schedule A thereto that the lands under acquisition in LAQ No. 27/91 were having irrigation facility which documents were produced by opponents before reference court. Further, to substantiate that the irrigation facility is available to claimants, claimants produced documents vide Exh.91 to 126, copy of village form No. 7/12 owing to the other cultivators of village Danda in which recital as to the existence of wells, tube wells and bore wells have been made in column No. 11. Said documents Exh. Further, to substantiate that the irrigation facility is available to claimants, claimants produced documents vide Exh.91 to 126, copy of village form No. 7/12 owing to the other cultivators of village Danda in which recital as to the existence of wells, tube wells and bore wells have been made in column No. 11. Said documents Exh. 91 to 126 produced by claimants were not controverted or challenged by present appellants before reference Court and, therefore, considering over all facts and circumstances of case, it was held by reference Court that the irrigation facility was available to the acquired lands as observed in Para 7 of the award by reference court. In respect of crops which claimants were taken as averred by them before reference court, reference Court has made discussion in Para 8 of award as under: “8. So far as the crops which the claimants were in the relevant year is concerned, the evidence on behalf of the claimants is produced vide Exh. 91 o 126 wherein the crops of Sugarcane, cotton high breed, pigeon pea have been recited. Furthermore, Special Land Acquisition Officer has also took the notice in its award Exh. 174 at page No. 6 that the crops of otton, pigeonp ea and sugercane are being grown by the claimants in their acquired lands. Therefore also I have no hesitation to accept that the claimants were growing the above crops in a relevant year. I would like to mention here that the crops of vegetables like finger does not find in Exh. 91 to 126 and crop of vegetables have also not been noticed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in absence of any recital in VF No. 7/12 It is not desirable to consider the crops of vegetables to determine the value of the acquired lands. Therefore, documentary evidence Exh. 164, 165 and 169, and deposition of private traders vide Exh. 164, 166 and 168 do not require to consider for determination of the value of the acquired lands. The above documentary as well as oral evidence are pertaining to the sale of vegetables to the private traders by claimants but the recital as to the crops of vegetables is found in Exh. 91 to 126 therefore to determine the value of the acquired land, those cannot be relied. The above documentary as well as oral evidence are pertaining to the sale of vegetables to the private traders by claimants but the recital as to the crops of vegetables is found in Exh. 91 to 126 therefore to determine the value of the acquired land, those cannot be relied. In view of the above, only the crop of sugarcane and cotton can be considered for determination of those references. The claimant Jayantibhai Dayalbhai vide Exh. 159 has deposed as to the block numbers of the acquired lands of the claimants and also as to the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act an also as to the award and awarded amount so far as the above facts is concerned, the parties are not at variance. Now, he has further deposed that they are entitled for Rs. 50.00 per sq. mtr. as the kind of quality of the lands under prefeences were of black jiyarat, well fertile and having irrigation facility. Therefore, someo f the claimants were growing the crops of sugarcane and some of the claimants were growing the crops of cotton in first s eason and thereafter, all the claimants were growing the crop of Lady’s finger. He has further deposed that the claimants who were growing the crop of sugercane were getting 90 MT per acre per a year, and were selling it to Ganesh Khand Udhyog Sahkari Ltd. and after multiplying it by a prevailing price rate of the above institution, the were getting Rs. 85104.00 as a gross income and were getting Rs. 55340.00 after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs. He has further deposed that some of the claimants were growing the crops of cotton and were getting 25 quintals cotton per acre in a year and they used to sell it to APMC Karjan and also private traders. A copy of the average price list, issued by APMC Karjan has been produced vide Exh. 169 and after multiplying above quantity @ prevailing price, the claimants were getting Rs. 48300.00 per ac re as a gross income and after deducting 35 % towards cultivation costs, they were getting Rs. 31400/- as net income per acre, the claimants also deposed as to the crop of Lady’s finger, but as I discussed earlier, and also to avoid repetition, I do not consider it at this stage. 48300.00 per ac re as a gross income and after deducting 35 % towards cultivation costs, they were getting Rs. 31400/- as net income per acre, the claimants also deposed as to the crop of Lady’s finger, but as I discussed earlier, and also to avoid repetition, I do not consider it at this stage. It is further deposed that at the time of acquisition, claimants were having irrigation facility, the said fact does not require to be considered further as the facts as to availability of irrigation facility is established by the claimants. It is further deposed by claimants that there is a price rising trend in a real estate like agricultural rate @ 15% to 20%. he further deposed that village D a da and Ikkhar have a common boudaries and the lands Ikkhar were acquireed in LAQ No. 2/90 and 5/90 and notification under sec.4 in that awards were published on 14.6.1990 and said awards were challenged under Sec. 18 of the Act and learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) & 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (SD) Bharuch were pleased to delivier the judgment in main LAR No. 405 of 1992 awarding Rs. 42.00 per square meter to the land losers. Both the previous judgments have been produced by the claimatns vide exh.128. He further deposed that the land under present reference and also the lands under previous judgments were situated within a limit of 1.5 to 2 km It is also deposed that industrial development have been established in the said vicinity, and they were getting the services and amenity, primary education, secondary education, electrification, post office, health centre, bank cooperative societies etc. The said claimants have been cross examined on behalf of the opponents and only the fact has come out that the distance between village Dada and Ikkhar has 4 to 5 km meaning thereby the lands under present references and lands under previous judgment were situated within the radius of 5 km. The opponents have not placed suggestion that the distance between two village are more than 5 km, therefore, also I am of the opinion that judgments delivered Exh. 128 is having relevancy for determination of the value of the acquired lands. The opponents have not placed suggestion that the distance between two village are more than 5 km, therefore, also I am of the opinion that judgments delivered Exh. 128 is having relevancy for determination of the value of the acquired lands. SO far as the cross examination on behalf of the opponents is concerned, all the suggestion put during the cross examination have been negatived by the claimants, the claimant has admitted that they have no evidence as to the quantity of crops which they were fetching. To substantiate the contention of the claimants witness Saiyed Yqub Mehmood examined vide Exh. 164N who happens tobe cane cane Accountant in a Ganesh Sugar Factory, Valia, he proved the facts under Exh.165, Exh. 165 is the certificate issued by Ganesh Khand Udhyog, pertaining to the prevailing prices of Sugercane for the period 1987-88 to 2003-2004. The witness Saiyed Ykub Mehmood denied as to the variation of the price of the sugercane on the basis of quality of the sugercane. He only admitted the fact that only the price for the burnt sugercane can be less and rest of the quality of the sugercane of the same price. He further sale during cross examination that they were not classifying the quantity of the sugarcane for the purpose of its price meaning thereby the price mentioned in exh.165 are pertaining to all crops of sugarcane except burnt sugarcane, the said institution has been established under the Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, the institution may not have any collusion or connivation with the claimants and there is also no suggestion on behalf of the opponents, therefore, exh. 165 stands proved. Another witness on behalf of the claimants have been examined. Vide Exh 167. Said witness Govindbhai Ranchhodbhai happens to be the Accountant in Sarbhan coop. Agricultural Produce Process, Karjan has issued a certificate as to the average price which is vide Exh. 167, in which the average prices of the cotton, pigeon pea, Lady’s finger and chilli have been mentioned, the above said institution is also established under the cooperative societies Act and having two nominated Directors by the Government, therefore, also said institution may not have any collusion with the claimants, therefore, the facts under Exh. 168 do not require to be doubted. Similarly Mr. Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai has been examined vide Exh. 168N who happens to be the Secretary of Dada Group Coop. 168 do not require to be doubted. Similarly Mr. Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai has been examined vide Exh. 168N who happens to be the Secretary of Dada Group Coop. Multiple Society Ltd. he is serving since 35 years in the said institution established under the cooperative societies Act and the said institution has issued certificate pertaining to the price of the cotton, which is vide Exh. 169 in which the prices for the year 1990 to 1998-99 have been mentioned.” 10. After considering two facts, one that the land in question were having irrigation facility and also crop produced from lands in question, reference Court has given reasons in support of its conclusion in Paras 9 and 10 of award as under: “9. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Tirmizi and also gone through the written arguments on behalf of the claimants and also heard learned AGP for opponent No. 1 & 2, and learned advocate Shri NJ Thakore on behalf of opponent No. 3. Here, I would like to mention that some of the claimants were growing the crops of cotton and some were growing the crops of sugarcane. The claimants failed to prove facts as to the second crop of lady’s finger in second season. SO far as the quantity of the sugarcane and cotton is concerned, the claimant - Jayantibhai Dayalbhai has deposed vide exh.109 that the claimants, who were growing the crop of sugarcane were getting 90 Mat . Tonnes in quantity per Acre per year, and they used to sell ti to Reva Khand Udhyog, and Ganesh Khand Udhyog Ltd., by multiplying the quantity at prevailing rate of the sugarcane Rs. 946/- per MT, they were getting Rs. 85140/- per acre in a year and after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs, they were getting Rs. 55340 per acre as a net income. He further deposed that some of the claimants were growing the crop of cotton and were getting 25 quintal in quantity per acre in a year and after multiplying it by prevailing rate Rs. 1932/- they were getting Rs. 48300/- per acre in a year and after deducting 35% towards cultivation cost, they were getting Rs. 31400/- per acre in a year. 1932/- they were getting Rs. 48300/- per acre in a year and after deducting 35% towards cultivation cost, they were getting Rs. 31400/- per acre in a year. Relying upon the above deposition of the claimant, learned advocate Shri Tirmizi and hius written arguments, contended that taking the base of the crop of sugarcane, the price of the acquired lands would be Rs. 106/- per sq. mtr. and on the basis of crop of cotton, value of the acquired lands would be Rs. 63/- per sq. mtr. So far as the deposition of the claimants, pertaining to the crop of sugarcane and cotton is concerned, it would be the natural tendency of any prudent man to exaggerate the version with a view to secure higher rate of compensation, therefore, the quantity which claimant has mentioned in his deposition cannot be accepted as appeal (gospel) truth. SO far as the prices of the above commodities are concerned, witness Saiyed Yakub Mehmood has been examined on behalf of the claimant vide Exh. 164, who is holding post of cane accountant in A Ganesh Sugar Factory Valia the said institution has been established under the Cooperative Act. The said institution has issued prevailing price list showing rate of sugarcane which is produced vide exh. 165 wherein the price of sugarcane is mentioned Rs. 946 per MT for the year 1995-96 SO far as the genuineness of the document vide exh. 165 is concerned, said fact has been proved during the examination of witness Yaqub Mehmood vide Exh.164. There may not be any ill will or sweet will with the parties, therefore, the genuineness of document exh.165 cannot be doubted. Most particularly said document is pertaining to the price list or the year 1995-96 Therefore, upon relying the deposition of the said witness Yaqub Mehmood stands proved that Rs. 946/- was the prevailig price rate of sugercane per MT in the year 1995-96. So far as the quantity of the sugarcane is concerned, the claimant might have exaggerated his version due to his natural tendency, and hence, to evaluate the acquired lands, some deduction requires to be considered, instead of 90 MT per acre, if we consider 31 MT per acre and after multiplying it 2 (to) prevailing price Rs. 946/-, it will come to 29326. 946/-, it will come to 29326. So far as the cultivation cost and multiplier is concerned, there are several judgments of Honourable Supreme Court as well as Honourable High Court of Gujarat which are mentioned hereinunder: (1) 1998 (2) SCC p. 385 (2) 1997 (1) SCC p. 331 (3) 1997(2) SCC p. 690 (4) 1996(3) SCC p. 592 (5) 1997 (3) GLR p. 1954 (6) AIR 2001 SCW 369 On perusal of the above citations, it is crystal clear that the deduction towards cultivation cost @ 35% which the claimants are claiming cannot be accepted. If cultivation cost @ 50 % and multiplier of 10 would be applied, then, it would be just and proper to determine the value of acquired lands. In view of the above facts, the claimants who were growing the crop of sugarcane might have fetched 31 MT per acre in a year and after multiplying it by prevailing market rate, the claimants might have got Rs. 29326.00 as a gross income and after deducting 50% towards cultivation cost, it will come to 14663/-. The above figure divided by 4000 sq. mtr. It will come 3665 and aft er applying multiplier of 10 it will come Rs. 36.65 ps. The above would be the just and proper value of the acquired lands. 10. So far as the crop of cotton is concerned, it is the say of the claimant that claimants were getting 25 quintal per acre in a year. So far as the quantity is concerned, as I said above, there must be aspect of exaggeration on the part of the claimant, therefore, the above quantity is required to be minimized, if we minimize it @ 15 quintal per acre and after applying it by prevailing market rate, Rs. 1932 per qunital, it will come Rs. 14490/- and after dividing it by 4000 sq. mtr., it will come 3.622 and after multiplying it by 10, it will come Rs. 36.22. SO far as the price of the cotton is concerned, the claimant’s examined the witness Shri Arvindbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vide Exh. 168 who happens to be the Accountant in APMC Karjan and durinmg his deposition he has proved the price list issued by the institution vide exh.169 wherein the price of the highbred cotton has been mentioned as Rs. 1932 per quintal. 168 who happens to be the Accountant in APMC Karjan and durinmg his deposition he has proved the price list issued by the institution vide exh.169 wherein the price of the highbred cotton has been mentioned as Rs. 1932 per quintal. As I said above, the said witness is also an employee of cooperative institution, his evidence is also required to be accepted, so far as the genuineness of document 15 % is concerned, therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimants have successfully proved the prevailing price of the cotton in the year 1995-96 The another witness Shri Govindbhai Ranchhodbhai vide Exh. 166 who happens to be the Assistant Secretary in Sarbhan Cooperative Agricultural Produce and Marketing, he is working in the said society since 35 years, and the said society has issued a average price list of the agricultural produce which is vide Exh. 167 wherein the price of the cotton in a year 1992-93 has been mentioned as 1965 per quintal but the price list issued by the above society is required to be accepted as it relates to low price of the cotton in a prevailing year, therefore, prices of the cotton has been accepted Rs. 1932/- as per the certificate issued by above society.” 11. Thereafter, it was observed by reference Court in view of the discussion quoted above that the claimants who were growing crop of sugarcane are entitled for Rs. 36.65 ps. Per sq. mtr. And the claimants who were growing crop of cotton are entitled for Rs. 36.22 per sq. mtr. And said figures are the result of guess work after minimizing the claim of the claimants, therefore, the amount from the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer should not be deducted from the value of the acquired lands as fixed. 12. In Para 12 of impugned award, reference Court has considered Exh. 129, previous judgment pertaining to lands acquired of village Ikkhar wherein 3rd Jt. CJ (SD) Bharuch and 2nd Jt. CJ (SD) Bharuch awarded Rs. 42.00 per sq. mtr. But considering the fact that previous said judgments are under scrutiny of this Court, it was observed that same cannot be considered as final decided claim and, therefore, reliance placed by claimants on Exh. 129 judgments is not relevant. So far as the evidence is concerned, no oral evidence has been led on behalf of opponents before reference court. mtr. But considering the fact that previous said judgments are under scrutiny of this Court, it was observed that same cannot be considered as final decided claim and, therefore, reliance placed by claimants on Exh. 129 judgments is not relevant. So far as the evidence is concerned, no oral evidence has been led on behalf of opponents before reference court. Opponent No. 3 had produced documentary evidence vide Exh. 174 to 176 wherein Exh. 175 was the copy of 5 years sale instances and so far as said documents are concerned, it was observed that same are mere statement, no title deed has been produced on behalf of opponents, therefore, quality of lands under said statement and present reference cannot be compared. It was also observed by reference Court that the opponents have not proved parity of quality of the lands under 5 years sale instance as well as under references and on that basis, reference Court has held that mere statement of sale instance cannot be considered. Therefore, considering award Exh. 198 produced by opponents wherein quality of lands acquired has been indicated and also the availability of irrigation facility, and also considering Exh. 199 village form 7/12, reference Court considered claim of claimant Rs. 3,00,000.00 per hector as compensation and also considering annual yield of the acquired land, it was held that the claimants are entitled either for Rs. 36.65 ps. Per sq. mtr. Or Rs. 36.22 ps. Per sq. mtr. Therefore, reference Court was of the opinion that it would be just and proper if additional compensation of Rs. 36.50 per sq. mtr. Is awarded to claimants and accordingly answered issue No. 1 and 2. 13. Thus, considering award, it is clear that the reference Court has examined matter and has also decided matter while applying yield method of income received by claimants from lands in question. 14. Ms. Manisha Narsinghani raised contention that in Para 9 reference Court has adopted method and in Para 10, reference Court has considered claimants who were growing crop of sugarcane might have fetched 31 MT per acre in year and multiplying it by prevailing market rate, claimants might have got Rs. 29326 as gross income and after deducting 50 per cent towards cultivation, it would come to Rs. 29326 as gross income and after deducting 50 per cent towards cultivation, it would come to Rs. 40663 and if this figure is divided by 4000, it will come to 3.665 and after multiplying it by 10, it will come to 36.65. It was then her specific submission that instead of dividing it by 4000, it ought to have been divided by 4047 and if that would have been done, it would have come to 3.620 and multiplier thereof by 10 would have come to Rs. 36.20 and therefore, reference Court has committed error in dividing said figure by 4000 which is apparent from record. With regard to Para 9, she submitted that as per same method of dividing, figure of Rs. 35.80 would come whereas reference Court has arrived at figure of 36.22 in Para 9 by dividing by 4000. 15. I have considered said submission made by Ms. Narsinghani while keeping in mind observations made by reference Court in Para 12 of award. Considering submission made by Ms. Narsinghani and observations made by reference Court in Para 12 of award, Ms. Manisha Narsinghani has worked out aforesaid figures on the basis of arithmatical method but reference Court has fairly made it clear in its award in Para 11 which is reproduced as under: “11. .. The above figures are the result of the guess work after minimizing the claim of the claimants, therefore, the amount from the compensation a warded by land acquisition officer should not be deducted from value of acquired land as fixed.” 16. Considering aforesaid observations, according to my opinion, there cannot be exact figure as suggested by learned AGP Ms. Narsinghani but it would depend upon guess work carried out by reference Court therefore there may be minor difference here or there but ultimately, this Court has to consider the substance that there is no much difference in the amount from 35.80 and 36.20 and after all, reference Court has fixed Rs. 36.50 ps. from two figures Rs. 36.65 and Rs. 36.22 per square meter. 17. It is necessary to note that in first appeal No. 2686 of 2007 to 2693 of 2007 decided by this Court on 13.2.2009, this Court has considered award passed by Reference Court, Bharuch in LAR Case No. 2 822 to 2829 of 1997 Exh. 126 dt. 5.3.05 wherein reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 36.50 ps. 17. It is necessary to note that in first appeal No. 2686 of 2007 to 2693 of 2007 decided by this Court on 13.2.2009, this Court has considered award passed by Reference Court, Bharuch in LAR Case No. 2 822 to 2829 of 1997 Exh. 126 dt. 5.3.05 wherein reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 36.50 ps. Per square meter in compensation case No. 71 of 1994 with consequential benefits and after examining said award made by reference court, appeals filed by State were dismissed by this court. Para 6 of judgment of this Court dated 13.2.2009 in FA No. 2686/07 to 2693/07 being relevant for the purpose of present appeals, same is reproduced as under: “6. I have perused the award passed by Reference Court in light of the aforesaid details and considering the reasoning given in Para.8 and 9, which are quoted as under : “8. So far as the crops, which the claimants were growing in the relevant year is concerned, the evidence on behalf of the claimants is produced vide exh. 29 to 37, wherein the crops of Cotton high-breed, Pigeon pea, have been recited. Further more Special Land Acquisition Officer has also took the notice in its award exh. 112 at page No. 6 that the crops of Cotton, Pigeon pea and Cotton are being grown by the claimants in their acquired lands. Therefore, also I have no hesitation to accept that the claimants were growing the above crops in a relevant year. I would like to mention here that the crops of vegetables like Lady’s finger does not find in exh. 29 to 37, and the crop of vegetable have also not been noticed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in absence of any recital in village form No. 7/12. It is not desirable to consider the crops of vegetables to determine the value of the acquired lands. Therefore, documentary evidence exh. 90 to 94, 96 to 97 and also exh. 99 to 106, and deposition of private traders vide exh.89, 95 and 98 do not require to consider for determination of the value of the acquired lands. It is not desirable to consider the crops of vegetables to determine the value of the acquired lands. Therefore, documentary evidence exh. 90 to 94, 96 to 97 and also exh. 99 to 106, and deposition of private traders vide exh.89, 95 and 98 do not require to consider for determination of the value of the acquired lands. The above documentary as well as oral evidence are pertaining to the sale of vegetables to the private traders by the claimants, but no recital as to the crops of vegetables is found in exh.29 to 37, therefore, to determine the value of the acquired land, those cannot be relied. In view of the above, only the crop of Pigeon pea and Cotton can be considered for determination of these references. The claimant-Bhikhabhai Narottambhai at exh.76 has deposed as to the block numbers of the acquired lands of the claimants, and also as to the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and also as to the award and awarded amount. So far as the above facts is concerned the parties are not at variance. Now, he has further deposed that they are entitled for Rs. 75/- per Sq.Mtrs. as the kind of quality of the lands under present references were of black jirayat, well fertile and having irrigation facility. Therefore, some of the claimants were growing the crops of Pigeon pea and some of the claimants were growing the crops of cotton in first season, and thereafter, all the claimants were growing the crop of Lady’s finger. He has further deposed that the claimants, who were growing the crop of Pigeon pea were getting 40 quintals green Pigeon pea, and 12 quintals dry Pigeon pea per Acre in a year, and were selling it to the APMC, Bharuch, and other private traders, and after multiplying it by a prevailing price rate of the above institution, they were getting Rs. 85,100/- as a gross income, and were getting Rs. 55,300/- after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs. He has further deposed that some of the claimants were growing the crops of Cotton and were getting 28 quintals Cotton per acre in a year and they used to sell it to APMC, Bharuch and also private traders. 85,100/- as a gross income, and were getting Rs. 55,300/- after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs. He has further deposed that some of the claimants were growing the crops of Cotton and were getting 28 quintals Cotton per acre in a year and they used to sell it to APMC, Bharuch and also private traders. A copy of the average price list, issued by APMC, Bharuch has been produced vide exh.83 and after multiplying above quantity @ prevailing price, the claimants were getting Rs. 58,800/- per acre as a gross income, and after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs they were getting Rs. 38,200/- as a nett income per acre, the claimants also deposed as to the crop of Lady’s finger, but as I discussed earlier, and also to avoid repeatition, I do not consider it at this stage. It is further deposed that at the time of acquisition, the claimants were having irrigation facility, the said fact does not require to be considered further as the facts as to the availability of the irrigation facility is established by the claimants. It is further deposed by the claimants that there is a price rising trend in a real estate like a agricultural rate @ 15 to 20%. He further deposed that village Dada, and Ikkhar have a common boundaries and the lands Ikkhar were acquired in L.A.Q. No. 2/90 and 5/90 and notification under Section 4 in that awards were published on 14.06.90 and said awards were and said awards were challenged under section 18 of the Act, and learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) and 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch were pleased to deliver the judgment in main L.A.R. No. 405/92 and 1197/93 awarding Rs. 42/- per Sq.Mtr. to the land losers. Both the previous judgments have been produced by the claimants vide exh. 74 and 75. He further deposed that the land under present references and also the lands under previous judgments were situated within a limit of 1.5 to 2 k.m. It is also deposed that industrial development have been established in the said vicinity, and they were getting the services and amenity, primary education, secondary education, electrification, post office, health centre, bank, co.op societies etc. The said claimants have been cross examined on behalf of the opponents, and only the fact has come out that the distance between village Dada and Ikkhar has 4 to 5 k.m., meaning thereby the lands under present references and lands under previous judgment were situated within the radius of 5 k.m. The opponents have not placed any suggestion that the distance between two villages are more than 5 k.m., therefore, also I am of the opinion that judgments delivered exh.74 and 75 are having relevancy for determination of the value of the acquired lands. So far as the cross examination on behalf of the opponents is concerned, all the suggestion put during the cross examination have been negatived by the claimants, the claimant ha admitted that they have no evidence as to the quantity of crops, which they were fetching. To substantiate the contention of the claimants witness Mahendrabhai Nanubhai Nanawati examined at Exh.82, who happens to be Assistant Secretary in a APMC, Bharuch, he roved the facts under Exh.83, which is the certificate, issued by APMC, Bharuch pertaining to the prevailing prices of Pigeon pea, cotton & Vegetables for the period 1991 to 1998, in which the average prices of the cotton, pigeon pea, lady’s finger and chili have been mentioned, the said institution APMC, Bharuch is also established under the Agricultural Producing Marketing Committees’ Act, and having two nominated Directors by the Government, therefore, also the said institution may not have collusion with the claimants, therefore, the facts under Exh.83 do not require to be doubted. Similarly Mr.Bhailalbhai Narottambhai Patel has been examined vide exh.84, who happens to be the Secretary of Dada Group Co.Op. Multiple Society Ltd., he is serving since 35 years in the said instruction, established under the Co-operative Societies’ Act, and the said instruction has issued a certificate, pertaining to the price of the Cotton, which is vide exh.85, in which the prices for the year 1992 to 1998-99 have been mentioned. 9. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Tirmizi and also gone through the arguments on behalf of the claimants and also heard learned D.G.P. for the opponent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri P.N. Modi on behalf of the opponent No. 2. Here, I would like to mention that some of the claimants were growing the crops of Cotton and some were growing the crops of Pigeon pea. Here, I would like to mention that some of the claimants were growing the crops of Cotton and some were growing the crops of Pigeon pea. The claimants failed to prove the facts as to the second crop of Lady’s finger in second season. So far as the quantity of the Pigeon pea and Cotton is concerned, the claimant-Bhikhabhai Narottambhai has deposed vide Exh.76 that the claimants, who were growing the crop of Pigeon pea were getting 40 quintals green Pigeon pea and 12 guintals dry Pigeon pea in quantity per Acre in a year, and they used to sell it to APMC, Bharuch and other private traders and they were getting Rs. 85,100 [er Acre in a year, and after deducting 35% towards cultivation costs, they were getting Rs. 55,300/- per acre as a nett income. He further deposed that some of the claimants were growing the crop of Cotton and were getting 28 quintal in quantity per acre in a year, and after multiplying it be prevailing rate Rs. 2100/- , they were getting Rs. 58800/- per Acre in a year, and after deducting 35% towards cultivation cost, they were getting Rs. 38200/- per Acre in a year. Relying upon the above deposition of the claimant, learned Advocate Shri Tirmizi and his arguments, contended that taking the base of the crop of Pigeon Pea, the price of the acquired lands would be Rs. 106/- per Sq.Mtr. and on the basis of crop of Cotton, value of the acquired lands would be Rs. 73/- per Sq.Mtr. So far as the deposition of the claimant, pertaining to the crop of Pigeon pea and Cotton is concerned, it would be the natural tendency of any prudent and to exaggerate the version with a view to secure higher rate of compensation, therefore, the quantity, which claimant has mentioned in his deposition cannot be accepted as gospel truth. So far as the prices of the above commodities are concerned, witness Shri Mahendrabhai Nanubhai Nanawati has been examined on behalf of the claimants at Exh.82 who is holding post of Cane Accountant in a Ganesh Sugar factory, Valia, the said institution has been established under the Co-operative Act. The said instruction has issued prevailing price list, showing rate of Sugarcane, which is produced vide exh.115, wherein the price of Pigeon pea is mentioned Rs. 1559/- per quintal, for the year 1995-96. The said instruction has issued prevailing price list, showing rate of Sugarcane, which is produced vide exh.115, wherein the price of Pigeon pea is mentioned Rs. 1559/- per quintal, for the year 1995-96. So far as the genuineness of the document vide Exh.83 is concerned, the said fact has been proved during the examination of witness Mahendrabhai Nanubhai Nanavati at Exh.82. There may not be any ill will or sweat will with the parties, therefore, the genuineness of document Exh.88 cannot be doubted. Most particularly said document is pertaining to the price list for the year 1995-96. Therefore, upon relying the deposition of the said witness Mahendrabhai Nanubhai Nanawati stands proved that Rs. 1559/- was the prevailing price rate of Pigeon Pea per quintal in the year 1995-96. So far as the quantity of the Pigeon pea is concerned, the claimant might have exaggerated his version due to his natural tendency, and hence, to evaluate the acquired lands, some deduction requires to be considered instead of 40 quintals per acre, if we consider 12 quintals crops of green Pigeon pea and 7 quintals crops of dry Pigeon pea, per acre, and after multiplying it a prevailing price Rs. 1559/- & Rs. 1900 per crops of green Pigeon pea and dry Pigeon pea respectively, then total amount of green Pigeon pea and dry Pigeon pea will come to Rs. 32208/-. So far as the cultivation cost and multiplier is concerned, there are several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which are mentioned herein under: 1. 1998 (2) SCC p.385 2. 1997(1) SCC p.331 3. 1997(2) SCC p.690 4. 1996(3) SCC p.592 5. 1997 (3) GLR p.1954 6. AIR 2001 SCW p.369 On perusal of the above citations, it is crystal clear that the deduction towards cultivation cost @ 35%, which the claimants are claiming cannot be accepted. If, cultivation cost @ 50% and multiplier of 10 would be applied then it would be the just and proper to determine the value of acquired lands. In view of the above facts, the claimants, who were growing the crop of Pigeon pea might have fetched 12 quintals green Pigeon pea and 7 quintals dry Pigeon pea per Acre in a year, and after multiplying it by prevailing market rate, the claimants might have got Rs. In view of the above facts, the claimants, who were growing the crop of Pigeon pea might have fetched 12 quintals green Pigeon pea and 7 quintals dry Pigeon pea per Acre in a year, and after multiplying it by prevailing market rate, the claimants might have got Rs. 32208/- as a gross income, and after deducting 50% towards cultivation cost, it will come to 16004. The above figure divided by 4000 sq. mtr. It will come to 4,001 and after applying multiplier of 10, it will come Rs. 40/- the above would be just and proper value of the acquired lands.” 18. Therefore, in view of the above judgment passed by this Court in aforesaid group of appeals in respect of same village Danda where Rs. 36.50 per square meter was awarded by reference Court has been confirmed by this court, where reasoning given by reference Court has been considered by this Court in detail in respect of same village, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned AGP Ms. Manisha Narsinghani cannot be accepted because reference Court has decided entire matter on the basis of yield method while considering income received by claimants from crops and worked out figure and deducted cultivation cost and then net income has been decided and on that basis, market price has been fixed but ultimately, it is based on guess work and therefore, there cannot be exact figure as stated earlier. Sale instances cited by opponents were rejected by reference Court on the ground that they are mere statement, no title deed has been produced on behalf of opponents, therefore, quality of lands under said statement and present reference cannot be compared. While considering sale instances, it was also observed by reference Court that the opponents have not proved parity of quality of the lands under 5 years sale instance as well as under references and on that basis, reference Court has held that mere statement of sale instance cannot be considered. Therefore, aforesaid contentions raised by Ms. Manisha Narsinghani cannot be accepted. Therefore, aforesaid contentions raised by Ms. Manisha Narsinghani cannot be accepted. Considering award as a whole in light of earlier decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2686 to 2693 of 2007 dated 13.2.2009, according to my opinion, reference Court has rightly decided matter and has awarded reasonable compensation to those whose lands were acquired by State Authority and, therefore, according to my opinion, reference Court has not committed any error in passing award in question and has awarded reasonable compensation and, therefore, there is no substance in these appeals and same are liable to be dismissed. Same are, therefore, dismissed. Registry of this Court is directed to draw decree accordingly as expeditiously as possible.