Judgment H.K. Rathod, J.— Heard learned Addl. GP Mr. UA Trivedi for Special Land Acquisition Officer and learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel for claimants. In these civil applications, rule is issued by Division Bench of this Court on 20.4.2006, ordered to be heard with First Appeal No. 1996 of 2005. 2. These applications have been filed by applicant during pendency of first appeal praying to permit applicant to produce additional evidence before this Court in pending appeal. Documents upon which applicant is relying were not produced before reference Court inspite of exercise of due diligence. Applicant Special Land Acquisition Officer has produced village map of village Asoj, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara as Annexure A to this application and applicant wants to produce same as an evidence in aforesaid first appeals. According to applicant, as per aforesaid map, it is very clear that all lands which are acquired for purpose of construction of Narmada Canal are not separated/severed in two pieces. Applicant has also submitted that land acquisition officer has also taken into consideration aforesaid aspect and therefore, at the time of passing an award, land acquisition officer has specifically stated that out of 29 block numbers of land in 11 block numbers of land are divided into two parts because of construction of aforesaid canal and, therefore, in Schedule F of award, land acquisition officer has awarded compensation to concerned claimants for severance of land. Applicant has also submitted that from map at annexure A, it is clear that reference Court has wrongly awarded compensation to all claimants at rate of 1/6 of market value for severance of land. It is also submitted by applicant that at the time of passing award, land acquisition officer has also considered sale deeds for period between 23.2.79 to 23.2.84 i.e. For a period of last five years from date of issuance of notification under section 4. Applicant has also submitted that land acquisition officer has considered total 11 such sale deeds which are specifically stated in award. Applicant has further submitted that aforesaid sale deeds and index in village form No. 2 were not produced before learned trial Court though due diligence was taken. Applicant beg to submit certified copy of sale deed dated 28.3.80 entered into between Natavarlal Maganlal Patel on one hand and Kamlaben Bhailalbhai, Rameshbhai Bhailalbhai, Jayantibhai Bhailalbhai, Gopibhai Bhailalbhai. Applicant has further submitted that aforesaid sale deeds and index in village form No. 2 were not produced before learned trial Court though due diligence was taken. Applicant beg to submit certified copy of sale deed dated 28.3.80 entered into between Natavarlal Maganlal Patel on one hand and Kamlaben Bhailalbhai, Rameshbhai Bhailalbhai, Jayantibhai Bhailalbhai, Gopibhai Bhailalbhai. Applicant submitted that aforesaid four persons have sold their land bearing survey Nos. 339, 342, 343/1, 343/2 to Natavarlal Maganlal Patel. At annexure B, certified copy of sale deed entered into between Kamalaben Bhailalbhai and others and Natavarlal Patel on 28.3.1980 is produced which is registered with Sub Registrar, Vadodara-1 vide Registration No. 2325. Applicant has also sought to produce certified copy of village form No. 2 in which details with regard to sale deeds entered into between concerned parties of village Asoj for period between 23.2.1979 to 23.2.1984 are stated. Applicant has submitted that aforesaid details have been considered by Land Acquisition Officer at time of declaring award under Section 11 of Act but aforesaid index was not produced before reference Court and, therefore, applicant is praying to permit applicant to produce aforesaid documents namely index village form No. 2 before this Court in aforesaid appeals for just decision of this court. It is also submitted by applicant that village Manjusar is an adjoining village to Asoj. Map of village Asoj and Manjusar is at annexure A and it is very clear that Manjusar is adjoining to village Asoj. There is land acquisition in village Manjusar and notifications under Section 4 had been published on 19.1.84 and in respect of village Asoj, notification under Section 4 has been published on 23.2.84. Applicant has submitted that in acquisition of lands of Manjusar village, in compensation case No. 3/84, compensation has been awarded by land acquisition officer,Unit-4 Baroda Rs. 1.70 per sq. mtr. has been awarded by Land Acquisition Officer and reference Court awarded Rs. 5.00 per sq. mtr. In case of acquisition of lands of village Manjusar. In present case, in compensation case No. 85/84 for village Asoj,land acquisition officer has awarded Rs. 2.50 against which District Court,Baroda has awarded Rs. 21.00 per square meter and hence it is very much clear that in adjoining village, district Court has awarded Rs. 5.00 per square meter and in present case, it has been Rs. In present case, in compensation case No. 85/84 for village Asoj,land acquisition officer has awarded Rs. 2.50 against which District Court,Baroda has awarded Rs. 21.00 per square meter and hence it is very much clear that in adjoining village, district Court has awarded Rs. 5.00 per square meter and in present case, it has been Rs. 21.00 per square meter, hence, reference Court has awarded 400 times more compensation in this case. In short, submission is that applicant may be permitted to produce annexure A, B, C, D and E on record being additional evidence in First Appeal No. 1996 to 2017 of 2005. 3. I have considered submissions of both learned advocates. I have also considered objections raised by learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel for claimants. learned Advocate Mr. Patel for claimants submitted that claimants have filed Civil Application No. 4121 to 4136 of 2006 which were ordered to be heard with First Appeal No. 2324 of 2005. He submitted that while replying aforesaid civil application, applicant inquired and verified about similar other reference cases of nearby villages and then, came to know about judgment and award in land reference case No. 499 to 550 of 1990 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara dated 18.8.2004 by which reference Court fixed market value at rate of Rs. 40.00 per square meter of land situated in sim of village Dumad, Taluka and District Vadodara. He submitted that lands of village Dumad were acquired for construction of Vadodara Ahmedabad Express Highway wherein notification under Section 4 of Act was issued on 20.8.1986. Both villages are situated adjoining to each other having common simada and distance of village Dumad and Asoj is about two kms only, therefore, it is comparable award of similarly situated lands. Certified copy of award passed in respect of village Dumad is also produced on record. Certificate from village talati also produced to show distance between village Asoj and Dumad, therefore, civil applications have been filed by both applicants means appellant and respondents claimants under Order 41, Rule 27 to permit additional evidence in pending appeals. 4. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and both parties are having award of nearby village and submitted that in present case of award of Rs. 21.00 is made which is unreasonable and arbitrary. 4. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and both parties are having award of nearby village and submitted that in present case of award of Rs. 21.00 is made which is unreasonable and arbitrary. According to my opinion, appeals have been preferred by State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer against award made by reference Court wherein reference Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 18.50 ps. Additional compensation over and above compensation of Rs. 2.50 ps. Awarded by land acquisition officer. 5. Therefore, in interest of justice, considering averments made by applicants in these applications and also considering submissions made by learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi for applicant Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as Mr. Trilok J. Patel for applicants original claimants, both group of civil applications are allowed and both parties are entitled to refer additional evidence at the time of considering this group of first appeals. Therefore, accordingly, prayer made in these civil applications is granted and rule is made absolute accordingly in these civil applications. 6. Civil Application No. 1903 to 1918 of 2006 have been filed by State Government in registry for additional evidence to be produced on record under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. This Court has considered civil applications filed by State Government for additional evidence and allowed same but it has been informed by Registry of this Court that group of Civil Application No. 1903 to 1918 of 2006 filed by State is not traceable in registry of this Court inspite of serious efforts made by them, therefore, in view of these facts, this group of Civil Application No. 1903 to 1918 of 2006 also disposed of along with group of other civil applications. 7. Heard learned Addl. GP Mr. Umesh A. Trivedi for appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Chhani, District Vadodara and learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel for respondents claimants in this group of appeals. 8. By filing these appeals, appellant has challenged common judgment delivered by reference Court in LRC No. 676 of 1991 to 697 of 1991 (Main LRC No. 682 of 1991) dated 17.9.2003 Exh. 27 wherein reference Court has held that claimants are entitled to get actual market price of acquired lands at Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector i.e. Rs. 21.00 per sq. mtr. (i.e. An additional amount of Rs. 18.50 per square meter with additional compensation. 27 wherein reference Court has held that claimants are entitled to get actual market price of acquired lands at Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector i.e. Rs. 21.00 per sq. mtr. (i.e. An additional amount of Rs. 18.50 per square meter with additional compensation. Reference Court also held that claimants who have suffered damages for severance of their lands are entitled to get compensation of 1/6th of market value of their acquired lands, with other consequential benefits. 9. Learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi submitted that lands of respondents claimants situated in village Asoj, Taluka and District Vadodara were acquired for purpose of construction of main canal of Narmada Project. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 23.2.1984. Thereafter, issuing follow up notification under Section 6 of Act, Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 24.11.86, awarded Rs. 2.50 per square meter being compensation for acquired lands to applicants as against demand of claimants for Rs. 30.00 per square meter. Against said award, reference under section 18 of Act were made by claimants wherein reference Court has, by his award dated 17.9.2003, awarded Rs. 21.00 per square meter i.e. additional compensation of Rs. 18.50 which are under challenge in this group of appeals. 10. Learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi submitted that reference Court has erred in not taking into consideration award declared by Land Acquisition Officer in its true spirit. He submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that contentions raised by original claimants are not bona fide and not in proper form and averments made by respondents are not true and correct. He further submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that compensation awarded to claimants by special land acquisition officer by his award dated 24.11.86 in case No. 85 of 1984 is quite correct and it is neither at low rate nor inadequate in any manner. He further submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that land acquisition officer has passed impugned award after taking into consideration all factors, and as per principles of natural justice. He submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that respondents have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. He also submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that in case of land of village Manjusar which is 4 km away from acquired land, reference Court had granted Rs. He submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that respondents have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. He also submitted that reference Court ought to have seen that in case of land of village Manjusar which is 4 km away from acquired land, reference Court had granted Rs. 5.00 per square meter whereas in present acquisition, amount awarded is Rs. 21.00 per square meter and both lands were acquired for Narmada Project. He also submitted that documents which are produced along with civil application for additional evidence, reference Court has not considered map which is certifying distance between Manjusar and Asoj. He submitted that sale deed produced on record along with additional evidence application is also not considered by reference Court which was taken into consideration by land acquisition officer. He relied upon Exh. 18 which is award passed by reference Court in land reference case No. 594/90 to 597/90 dated 22.3.03 where reference Court has awarded Rs. 5.00 per square meter being additional amount for irrigated land and Rs. 3.30 per square meter for non irrigated land. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel submitted that reference court, in respect of village Manjusar, came to conclusion that claimants are entitled for Rs. 10.00 being additional compensation but considering demand made by claimants for Rs. 5.00, reference Court has awarded Rs. 5.00 as additional amount of compensation in favour of claimants therein. learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel also submitted that in respect of village Manjusar, damages for severance of lands of claimants therein, amount of compensation of 1/6th of market value has been granted, similarly, in facts of this case also, same benefit has been granted by reference court. He also submitted that village Dumad having distance from Asoj 3 km wherein section 4 notification is dated 20th August, 1986 and section 6 notification is dated 17.1.1987 wherein land acquisition officer has awarded Rs. 7.50 per square meter and reference Court has awarded Rs. 40.00 per square meter by award dated 18th August, 2004 wherein reference Court has also relied upon sale deed produced on record. Award passed in respect of lands of village Manjusar by reference Court has been challenged by State Government by filing First Appeal No. 1778 to 1781 of 2003 which are pending before this court. 40.00 per square meter by award dated 18th August, 2004 wherein reference Court has also relied upon sale deed produced on record. Award passed in respect of lands of village Manjusar by reference Court has been challenged by State Government by filing First Appeal No. 1778 to 1781 of 2003 which are pending before this court. In respect of village Manjusar, award passed by reference Court is dated 22nd March, 2003 having distance from Asoj about 15 km and section 4 notification is dated 19th January, 1984 and section 6 notification is dated 29th December, 1984. He submitted that in respect of villagle Dumad where reference Court has decided while giving award Exh. 101 in LR Case No. 499 to 550 of 1990 dated 18th August, 2004, Rs. 40.00 awarded being market price per square meter and lands have been acquired by State Government. He submitted that distance between Asoj and Dumad is nearby having common Simada and, therefore, if this Court is considering additional evidence in respect of village Manjusar, then, this Court must also consider award passed in respect of village Dumad where Rs. 40.00 has been awarded being market price per square meter. learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel also submitted that reference Court has, in facts of present case, rightly examined matter on basis evidence on record and gave additional amount of compensation of Rs. 18.50 over and above compensation of Rs. 2.50 awarded by land acquisition officer, for that, according to him, reference Court has not committed any error which would require interference by this court. In short, it is his submission that if this Court is considering additional evidence produced by appellant for considering award in respect of village Manjusar, then, this Court should also consider award in respect of village Dumad which is having common simada with village Asoj. 11. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by reference court. Before reference court, on behalf of claimants, deposition of witness Shri Harmanbhai Dahyabhai Patel is recorded at Exh. 18 who is claimant in LR Case No. 682/91 and certified copies of village form No. 7/12 of acquired lands for year 1982-83 to 1986-87 is produced at Exh. 20. Vide Exh. 21, 30th annual report of APMC Dabhoi showing price of crops for year 1984-85 is produced. On behalf of appellant, vide Exh. 18 who is claimant in LR Case No. 682/91 and certified copies of village form No. 7/12 of acquired lands for year 1982-83 to 1986-87 is produced at Exh. 20. Vide Exh. 21, 30th annual report of APMC Dabhoi showing price of crops for year 1984-85 is produced. On behalf of appellant, vide Exh. 22, deposition of witness Shri SJ Patel has been recorded. Vide Exh. 23, deposition of witness for appellant Shri Panchsheel K anchanlal Shah has been recorded. Reference Court has examined matter after considering award passed by Land Acquisition Officer in LA Case No. 85 of 1984. Contentions raised by claimants before reference Court being common, therefore, LR Cases were consolidated and dealt with and decided by common judgment. It was alleged by claimants that compensation which was awarded by Land Acquisition Officer in respect of village Asoj is totally inadequate. It was also alleged by claimants, Land Acquisition Officer has not properly determined prevailing market value of their acquired lands. It was also alleged that lands belonging to them were irrigated lands having high fertility and they were raising crops viz. Cotton, tobacco, juvar and tuver. It was also their case that there is pakka road, school, library, cooperative societies and electricity in village. It was also their case that there are connected roads with taluka and Vadodara District at just 8 kms. And NH No. 8 is only 12 kms away from acquired lands and IOC Company is situated nearby acquired lands. According to claimants, actual price of land surrounding to acquired lands have gone high though land acquisition officer has decided low price of their acquired lands on basis of sale transactions of last five years. According to claimants, aforesaid factors have not been taken into consideration by Land Acquisition Officer while deciding actual market price. According to claimants, market value of acquired lands was required to be paid at least proper but land acquisition officer has awarded amount of compensation to claimants only at rate of Rs. 2.50 per sq. mtr. According to claimants, their lands were divided in two parts due to acquisition which has reduced its saleability and production of crops and therefore, they have asked for compensation of damages caused on account of reduction of saleability and production of crops due to such acquisition. Therefore, aforesaid references were made before reference Court by claimants. 12. mtr. According to claimants, their lands were divided in two parts due to acquisition which has reduced its saleability and production of crops and therefore, they have asked for compensation of damages caused on account of reduction of saleability and production of crops due to such acquisition. Therefore, aforesaid references were made before reference Court by claimants. 12. It was case of appellant before reference Court that petitions filed by claimants are not bona fide and not in proper form and averments made by claimants are not true and correct. It was also contended that compensation awarded to claimants is quite proper and correct and it is neither at low rate nor inadquate in any manner. It was also contended that land acquisition officer has made impugned award after taking into consideration all factors and as per principles of natural justice. It is also alleged by appellants before reference Court that applicants claimants have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. According to appellant before reference court, land acquisition officer has determined value of lands after taking into consideration registered sale deeds for last five years. It was case of appellant that surrounding land of acquired lands is not developed and there is no any kind of facility and hence land acquisition officer has not committed any error in awarding compensation and, therefore, it was prayed by appellant before reference Court to dismiss references with costs. 13. After recording pleadings of parties as aforesaid, issues have been framed by reference Court as per Para 5 of award and on behalf of respective parties, evidence was recorded by reference Court as referred to above and appellant also led oral evidence of one witness Mr. HJ Patel Exh. 22 and one witness Panchsheel K. Shah Exh. 23. Written arguments were placed on record Exh. 26 by claimants and on behalf of appellants, oral submissions were made before reference court. Reference Court has considered certain decisions on claimants’ side and reference Court also considered evidence of claimant Harmanbhai Dahyabhai Exh. 18 against which two witnesses were examined by appellant at Exh. 22 and 23 as stated earlier. Thereafter, reference Court has considered evidence on record as well as documents which are produced by respective parties. Reference Court has considered certain decisions on claimants’ side and reference Court also considered evidence of claimant Harmanbhai Dahyabhai Exh. 18 against which two witnesses were examined by appellant at Exh. 22 and 23 as stated earlier. Thereafter, reference Court has considered evidence on record as well as documents which are produced by respective parties. So, reference Court has considered that neither claimants nor opponents have produced any evidence with regard to sale deed or other evidence to determine market value of acquired lands. So, in absence of such evidence, reference Court has considered for fixing market price agricultural income derived from acquired lands. Reference Court has considered oral evidence of witness for claimants Shri Harmanbhai Dahyabhai Patel Exh. 18 wherein it was deposed by him that claimants were raising crops of cotton, tobacco, tuber, before acquisition of their lands. Reference Court also considered village form No. 7/12 produced by claimants with regard to crops taken by them on lands under acquisition. According to claimants, as considered by reference court, they were earning additional income by selling cattle food from crops of tuver and juvar. Claimants were also relying on Annual Report of APMC Dabhoi at Exh. 21 showing price of crops prevailed at time of acquisition. Reference Court considered that opponents means present appellants have not produced any evidence contrary to agricultural income as described by claimants. Therefore, relying upon yield of income, reference Court observed that it would be proper method to apply multiplier of 10 as settled by Apex Court for evaluating market value of acquired lands and then if multiplier of 10 is applied, net annual income would come to Rs. 1,93,000.00 per vigha (Rs. 19300 x 10) which would be just and proper market value of acquired lands. Thereafter, for finding out market value per hector, reference Court multiplied figure of Rs. 1,93,000 by 4.4 and held that an amount of Rs. 8,49,200.00 would come per hector. Thereafter, for finding out average income per crop, reference Court divided total income of Rs. 8,49,200.00 by four crops and held that average income per crop would come to Rs. 2,12,300.00 per hector i.e. Round figure of Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector as against claim of claimants for Rs. 3,00,000.00 per hector for their acquired lands. Therefore, reference Court held that it would be just and proper to award compensation to claimants at rate of Rs. 8,49,200.00 by four crops and held that average income per crop would come to Rs. 2,12,300.00 per hector i.e. Round figure of Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector as against claim of claimants for Rs. 3,00,000.00 per hector for their acquired lands. Therefore, reference Court held that it would be just and proper to award compensation to claimants at rate of Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector i.e. Rs. 21.00 per square meter for their acquired lands. Relevant discussion made by reference Court in Paras 11 and 12 of impugned award is quoted as under:— “11) Considering the evidence led by the parties, it is an admitted fact that neither the claimants nor the opponents have produced any evidence with regard to the sale deeds oro ther evidence to determine the market value of the acquired lands. So, in absence of such evidence,t his Court has to rely upon the agricultural income derived from the acquired lands. That the claimant’s witness Shri Harmanbhai Dahyabhai Patel in his deposition at Exh. 18 has deposed that the claimants were raising crops of cotton, tobacco, tuver and before acquisition of their lands. That the claimants have produced the village form No. 7/12 with regard to the crops taken by them on the lands under acquisition at Exh. 20. According to the claimants, they were earning additional income by selling cattle food from the crops of tuver and juvar. That the claimatns have also relied on the annual report of the APMC Dabhoi at Exh. 21 showing the price of the crops prevailed at the time of acquisition. According to the claimants, they were earning the gross income from the agricultural produced as such:— Sr. No. Name of the crop Gross income per vigha 1 Cotton Rs. 7100/- 2 Tuver+cattle food Rs. 7400/- (Rs. 10500+2000) 3 Juvar+Cattle food Rs. 12500/- (Rs. 10500+2000) 4 Tobacco Rs. 11500/- In view of the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, it is well settled principle of law that 50% is to be deducted as expenses of cultivation from the gross income to arrive at net income. Thus, the total net annual income of all these crops would find out as under:— Sr. No. Name of the crop Net income after 50% eduction (per vigha) 1 Cotton Rs. 3600/- 2 Tuver+Cattle food Rs. 3700/- (Rs. 2700+1000) 3 Juvar+Cattle food Rs. 6250/- (Rs. 5250+1000) 4 Tobacco Rs. Thus, the total net annual income of all these crops would find out as under:— Sr. No. Name of the crop Net income after 50% eduction (per vigha) 1 Cotton Rs. 3600/- 2 Tuver+Cattle food Rs. 3700/- (Rs. 2700+1000) 3 Juvar+Cattle food Rs. 6250/- (Rs. 5250+1000) 4 Tobacco Rs. 5750/- Total Rs. 19300.00 The opponents have not produced any evidence contrary to the agricultural income as described by the claimants. So, relying upon the yield of income, it would be proper method to apply multiplier of 10 as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for evaluating themarket value of the acquired lands. Then, if we apply multiplier of 10, the net annual income would come to Rs. 1,93,000.00 per vigha (Rs. 19300x10) which would be just and proper market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, to find out the market value in per hector, the amount of Rs. 1,93,000 x 4.4 (1 hector is equivalent to 4.4 vigha), it would come to Rs. 8,49,200/- per hector, so, to find out the average income per crop, the total income of Rs. 8,49,200.00 divided by four crops (i.e. Cotton, Tuver, Juvar and Tobacco), then, it would come to Rs. 2,12,300.00 per hector i.e. Round figure of Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector. Herein this case, the claimants have claimed Rs. 3,00,000.00 per hector for their acquired lands But the claimants could prove only Rs. 2,10,000.00 per hector i.e. Rs. 21.00 oer sq. mtrs. for their acquired lands. 12. Moreover, the claimants have demanded the compensation of the damages for severance of their land. The claimant’s witness in his deposition vide Exh. 18 has stated that due to construction of the canal, their lands divided in two pieces which affects on annual income as well as reduced the saleability of their lands. The opponent’s witness in their deposition at Exh. 22 and 23 have admitted the fact that the lands of the claimants were divided in two pieces due to construction of canal and no compensation for damages caused to them was paid. So, as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Amirbibi vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in XXII 1981 GLR 590 that the damages suffered by the claimants for severance of their lands cannot go uncompensated. So, as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Amirbibi vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in XXII 1981 GLR 590 that the damages suffered by the claimants for severance of their lands cannot go uncompensated. Wherein 1/6th of the market value of the acquired land held to be proper compensation for fragment of acquired land. So, relying upon the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the claimants are entitled to 1/6th of the market value for injurious affection for severance of their lands.” 14. Thus, reference Court has, relying upon judgment of this court, held that claimants are entitled to 1/6th of market value for injurious affection for severance of their lands. Learned Addl. GP Mr. Trivedi, having information from officer concerned, submitted that in respect of distance between village Asoj and Manjusar is 4 km and distance between Asoj and dumad is 5 km. In village Manjusar, Rs. 5.00 has been awarded as compensation but reference Court has estimated at Rs. 10.00 on yield basis. Price of land is to be determined while considering value of land in respect to year 1984 when section 4 notification is issued. learned Advocate Mr. Patel for claimants submitted in respect of directions issued by reference Court in favour of claimants as discussed in Para 12 of award that claimants are not pressing direction issued by reference Court awarding 1/6th of market value for injurious affection for severance of lands of claimants, therefore, he is prepared to give consent for setting aside directions issued by reference Court in its award dated 17th September, 2003 to that extent only with a view to avoid further future litigation in this matter. 15. Before concluding in group of these appeals, it would be just and proper to consider view taken by Apex Court in case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 AIR SCW 2962 wherein Apex Court has considered interference with finding of fact, summarized and stated principles. Enhancement of compensation by reference Court on basis of evidence and material on record was reversed by High Court. It was held by Apex Court that reversal of finding of fact by High Court merely on basis of suggestions given by State not justifiable. Enhancement of compensation by reference Court on basis of evidence and material on record was reversed by High Court. It was held by Apex Court that reversal of finding of fact by High Court merely on basis of suggestions given by State not justifiable. Relevant Head Note (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and Para 37 of said judgment are reproduced as under:— “(A) Constitution of India, Article 136 - Jurisdiction under- Interference with finding of fact - Principles regarding, summarized and stated - Land Acquisition Case - Enhancement of compensation by Reference Court on basis of evidence and material on record - Reversal of finding of fact by High Court merely on basis of suggestions given by State - Not justifiable. FA No. 875 of 2003, Dt.6.12.2004 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench), Reversed. Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Section 11. On the question of exercising power to interfere with findings of fact by the Supreme Court under Article 136, the following principle emerge: * The powers of Supreme Court under Article 136 are very wide. * It is open to Supreme Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. * The appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. * The appreciation of evidence and finding results in serious miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality. * Where findings of subordinate Courts are shown to be ‘perverse or based on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or there are material irregularities affecting the said findings or where the Court feels that justice has failed and the findings are likely to result in unduly excessive hardship. * When the High Court has re-determined a fact in issue in a civil appeal and erred in drawing inferences based on presumptions. * The judgment was not a proper judgment of reversal. AIR 1975 SC 1534 ; AIR 1989 SC 1247 ; (2000)2 SCC 185 ; (1994) 6 SCC 29 ; AIR 1979 SC 1284 ; AIR 1972 SC 975 ; AIR 1958 SC 61 , Foll. * The judgment was not a proper judgment of reversal. AIR 1975 SC 1534 ; AIR 1989 SC 1247 ; (2000)2 SCC 185 ; (1994) 6 SCC 29 ; AIR 1979 SC 1284 ; AIR 1972 SC 975 ; AIR 1958 SC 61 , Foll. (Para 22) Where in a land acquisition matter, the evidence and material was duly considered by the Reference Court and the compensation amount was enhanced, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the findings of the Reference Court and to set aside order of the Reference Court and to restore the order of LAO merely on suggestions given by the State in cross examination of the witnesses of landowners. The findings made by the High Court were arbitrary and improper inasmuch as the High Court had failed to consider the total lack of evidence adduced by the State and disregarded the witnesses produced before it without sufficient justification for doubting their credibility. Such arbitrariness in findings had caused serious miscarriage of justice as against the landowner by denying him a just and reasonable compensation for property acquired from him by the State. FA No. 875 of 2003, Dt.6.12.2004 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench), Reversed. (Paras 24, 36) (B) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984), Section 23 - Market value of acquired property - Burden of proof - Burden of inadequacy of compensation amount successfully discharged by claimant - State not adducing any evidence in support of its claim of sufficiency - Order of High Court setting aside award by Reference Court - Not justifiable. FA No. 875 of 2003, Dated 6.12.2004 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench), Reversed. The burden of proving the true market value of acquired property is on the State that has acquired it for a particular purpose. Where the land owner has been able to show by the testimony and valuation report of the expert valuer, that the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the onus now shifts on the State to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the award. The burden of proof in civil cases is that of ‘balance of probability” and not that of ‘beyond reasonable doubt”. Thus, minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden. The burden of proof in civil cases is that of ‘balance of probability” and not that of ‘beyond reasonable doubt”. Thus, minor inconsistencies in evidence are not relevant in civil cases in considering the question of discharge of this burden. If the State has been unable to produce any evidence at all to support its claim of sufficient of the award, and the conclusion of the High Court is backed only by assertions rather than by acceptable reasoning, based on proper appreciation of evidence, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. FA No. 875 of 2003, Dated 6.12.2004 (Bom) (Aurangabad Bench), Reversed. (C) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Section 23 - Market value of acquired land - Valuation Report by expert valuer based on his personal visit tos site, map drawn after measurements and after deducting cost of depreciation - PWCD Practice and standard engineering norms adopted for deciding value - All such factors,held, made the report worthy of credence - He being expert in his field he can rely on his knowledge, expertise and judgment to come to conclusionr egarding type of materialused in construction and its source - Not necessary for him to rely on report of some other person. 2004 AIR SCW 5534, Rel. on. (Paras 28, 34) (D) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) Section 51-A - Expression “may” - Meaning - Reliance on certified copy of sale transaction without examining vendor or vendee - Discretionary. Interpretation of statutes - Word ‘may’ - Connotation. Section 51-A permits acceptance of the certified copy of the sale transaction, as produced by the witness, even without examination of the vendor or vendee. However, the use of the term “may” in the said provision shows that there is discretion with the Court to the extent of reliance to be placed on the same. Where the State has been unable to produce any evidence to rebut the sale deed, reliance on the same and to consider it genuine is permissible. (Para 31) (E) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Section 23 - Market value of acquired property - Proximity of acquired property to developed area - cannot be over loked on basis of minor inconsistency and technicalities. Proximity to develop urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered, while deciding on the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of evidence available. Proximity to develop urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered, while deciding on the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of evidence available. Where there is evidence to show that acquired property is situated near Highway and the State has not given any evidence to rebut this contention, the Court cannot overlook the proximity of the acquired property to a developed area, and the High Court cannot set aside the order of the reference Court merely on the grounds of minor inconsistencies and technicalities. The compensation provision the Act is in the nature of a welfare stipulation and the State Government must be just and fair to those whose land it acquires. AIR 1985 SC 1576 ; AIR 1989 SC 1222 , Rel. on. (Para 37) 37. Finally, it is pertinent to note that the appellants have correctly brought out the opinion of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust (Supra) and Bhag Singh vs. Union of India (Supra). The former case clearly lays down that proximity to develop urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered, while deciding on the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of evidence available. The High Court seems to have ignored that based on the evidence put forth before it by the appellant, the acquired property is situated near Osmanabad Latur Road and Aurangabd Solapur Highway, and the Respondent has not given any evidence to rebut this contention. Thus, the High Court has overlooked the proximity of the acquired property to a developed area. Further, while this Court clearly cautioned against taking up of “technical pleas to defeat a just claim to enhanced compensation” under the Act in Bhag Singh vs. Union of India (Supra), the High Court set aside the order of the Reference Court merely on grounds of minor inconsistencies and technicalities. It seemed to have disregarded the fact that the compensation provision of the Act is in the nature of a welfare stipulation and thus the State government must be just and fair to those whose land it acquires. It is not just and fair to deprive the owner of any property without payment of its true market value, especially when the law provides that the same shall be paid.” 16. In case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead)by LRs. It is not just and fair to deprive the owner of any property without payment of its true market value, especially when the law provides that the same shall be paid.” 16. In case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead)by LRs. vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , Apex Court has considered principles of determination of market value and relevant factors to be considered. Relevant discussion made in Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20 of said judgment are reproduced as under: “17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4. 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. 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 (iv) lower level area requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality acquisition (vi) level vis-a-vis (vi) some special disadvantageous land 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.” 17. Recently, in Special Land Acquisition Officer, UK Project vs. Mahaboob & Anr., 2009 (3) Scale 263 , Apex Court observed as under in Paras 7, 8, 9, 10: “Plight of land losers 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. 5,300/- (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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 beformulated 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 cost price, 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. 10. We are not unaware of the fact that in some cases, the awards of courts is high. The main reason therefor is the failure on the part of Collectors / LAOs/Beneficiaries of acquisition, to conduct the cases before the reference Court properly. They either fail to cross-examine the claimant’s witnesses or fail to lead evidence to rebut the high claims. An attempt is belatedly made to set right the matter by filing appeals.’ 18. Thus, as per observations made by Apex Court in cases aforesaid, in cases where lands of land owners have been acquired, they require reasonable compensation because it is a question of livelihood for land losers. An attempt is belatedly made to set right the matter by filing appeals.’ 18. Thus, as per observations made by Apex Court in cases aforesaid, in cases where lands of land owners have been acquired, they require reasonable compensation because it is a question of livelihood for land losers. Considering facts of this case, reference Court has considered decisions in Para 8(I) [pages 7 to 10 of award] as under: “(I) For the claimants’ side: 1983 (1) GLR 607 The Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition Ahmedabad vs. Gordhanbhai Bhailalbhai Patel Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that ‘an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot become evidence, but only an offer. 1981 GLR 22 p. 590 Amirbibi Wd/o. Hajiabdul Karim vs. Special Land Acquisition Office, Ahmedabad. Wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that Evidence Act - Section 45 - Land Acquisition Act, 1984, - Section 23 - Major portion of land acquired injurious affection about remaining lands - Extent of depreciation in value - Expert evidence essential - However, if expert’s evidence is not available, Court can make reasonable guess from evidence on record. The Hon’ble High Court has also held that the damages suffered by the claimant cannot go uncompensated. Therefore, Court must make best endeavour to mete out justice - for injuriously affected property about 1/6th of the market value of the acquired land held to be proper compensation. - 1999 (4) GCD p. 2767 Executive Engineer vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. Wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that for arriving at the figure of just adequate and reasonable compensation - Reference Court and even appellate Court has to make some guess work or some arbitrariness in arriving at the figure of market value. 1997(2) GCD p. 215 (SC) State of Gujarat vs. Rama Rana Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that determination of compensation - Award of reference Court as affirmed by High Court irrespective of classification of Land at the rate of Rs. 325 per Acre to all the land not proper - Value of crop as determined by reference Court at Rs. 2050/- as an average annual income upheld - Applying multiplier of 10 and while deducting 50 per cent towards cultivation expenses held claimant entitled to Rs. 325 per Acre to all the land not proper - Value of crop as determined by reference Court at Rs. 2050/- as an average annual income upheld - Applying multiplier of 10 and while deducting 50 per cent towards cultivation expenses held claimant entitled to Rs. 20500/- per Acre with other benefits as per A ct amended by Act 68 of 1984. -1996 (3) GCD p. 348 (SC) Vitthalbhai Bakorbhai (dead) through LRs vs. Executive Engr. Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ‘determination of the market value based upon the yield of income and application of multiplier of 10 - It cannot be said in the facts of the case that finding is vitiated by any application of wrong principle of law. - 1992 (1) GLH 487 State of Gujarat vs. Kathi Malsiya Vagha Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that the assessment of compensation in respect of agricultural land No exact yardstick for measuring income from agricultural produce - Net income of land to be capitalized by applying a proper multiplier. -1998 (1) GCD p. 338 (Guj). Dy. General Manager vs. Chaturji Lalaji & Others. Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that Under sections 4 (1) and 23(1A) of the LA Act - the benefits of additional amount to market value - Entitlement commences from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) to the date of award of collector or date of taking over possession of the lands whichever is earlier - However, in the case claimants were not entitled to benefit from the date of possession because land covered under notification was already temporarily under acquisition of appellant on rental basis - However, claimant shall be entitled to 12 percent increase by benefit under Section 23(1-A) from date of notification. - 1998 (1) GCD 62 (Guj) Spl. - 1998 (1) GCD 62 (Guj) Spl. Land Acquisition Officer vs. Motibhai Mohanbhai Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has held that “the land acquisition Act, 1984 - Market value Assessment, Principles governing - Court has to value property in its actual condition at the time of acquisition without existing advantage and possibilities excluding any advantages due to carrying out of the scheme for the purpose of which property is compulsorily acquired - For the purpose Court has to put itself in arm chair of prudent seller but not anxious purchaser as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. -2001 (3) GLH 446 Supreme Court. Sunder vs. Union of India. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that question of interest arises when compensation is not paid on or before date of possession of land - the interest is payable on aggregate amount of compensation including solutium. - Unreported judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat delivered on 23.1.2002 in First Appeal No. 5106/2001 to 5210 of 2001 in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Rabari Chhaganbhai Visabhai. Wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has awarded interest on solatium as well as under Section 28 of the Act to the claimants and also awarded the interest on the amount awarded under Section 23(2) and Section 23(1A) of the LA Act.” 19. Thus, aforesaid decisions were relied upon by claimants before reference Court and reference Court considered it as quoted above but no decision has been cited by advocate for appellant before reference court. Section 4 notification is dated 23.2.1984. Map was produced by appellant along with application for additional evidence which has been considered by this Court and also produced certified copy of sale deed dated 28.3.80 entered into between Natavarlal Maganlal Patel on one hand and Kamlaben Bhailalbhai, Rameshbhai Bhailalbhai, Jayantibhai Bhailalbhai, Gopibhai Bhailalbhai. Section 4 notification is dated 23.2.1984. Map was produced by appellant along with application for additional evidence which has been considered by this Court and also produced certified copy of sale deed dated 28.3.80 entered into between Natavarlal Maganlal Patel on one hand and Kamlaben Bhailalbhai, Rameshbhai Bhailalbhai, Jayantibhai Bhailalbhai, Gopibhai Bhailalbhai. Appellant has also produced certified copy of village form No. 2 in which details with regard to sale deeds entered into between concerned parties of village Asoj for period between 23.2.1979 to 23.2.1984 are stated where sale deed registered on 22nd June, 1979,30th May, 1979 and 30th November, 1979 and 6th December 1979 and some of sale deeds are registered in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and some of which are of 1983 and one is of 1984 but details of land are not specified, whether land is potential and having fertility of sale like land acquired by special land acquisition officer in case of respondents claimants, that has not been clarified by appellant. In case before hand, section 4 notification is dated 23.2.84 and relevant sale deeds are from year 1979 to 1983 and only one sale deed is of 1984 and, therefore, additional evidence of sale deed produced by appellant before this Court cannot be considered as it is not of nearby period of section 4 notification in respect to facts of present case, dated 23.2.84 and Appellant has not examined any person to justify as genuine transactions of sale deeds produced by appellant. 20. In respect of village Manjusar, first appeal filed by State Government is pending before this Court wherein section 4 notification is dated 19.1.1984 and section 6 notification is dated 29.12.1984 but whether both lands are having same potentiality and fertility or not, for that, there is nothing on record like evidence of claimants of village Manjusar Taluka Savli, District Baroda. Lands of claimants situated in village Asoj are situated in Taluka Vadodara District Vadodara. That itself is a difference. Lands having different taluka. In respect to lands of village Manjusar, Taluka Savli and in respect to village Asoj, Taluka is Vadodara. Further, development of both lands are also not comparable in view of evidence of claimants of village Manjusar where evidence of Gordhanbhai D. Solanki was recorded at Exh. That itself is a difference. Lands having different taluka. In respect to lands of village Manjusar, Taluka Savli and in respect to village Asoj, Taluka is Vadodara. Further, development of both lands are also not comparable in view of evidence of claimants of village Manjusar where evidence of Gordhanbhai D. Solanki was recorded at Exh. 10 and one witness was examined by State of Gujarat, Shashikant J. Patel and witness Nathubhai Chhanabhai was examined at Ex 50 and thereafter, award was passed by reference Court in respect of village Manjusar. Therefore, award passed by reference Court in respect of lands of village Manjusar, Taluka Savli cannot be taken into consideration while considering award passed by reference Court in respect of lands of village Asoj, Taluka Vadodara, because of distance of 4 km inbetween. State Government or Special Land Acquisition Officer must have to prove before reference Court by leading proper by relying upon award of nearby village to lands of both village having same fertility and potentiality. So, in absence of such evidence which has not been produced by appellant in this case, award passed in respect of village Manjusar cannot be relied upon by this Court while considering impugned award passed by reference Court in this group of appeals relating to village Asoj. 21. Similarly village Dumad is also situated at distance of about 5 km and in respect of village Dumad, I have considered award made by reference Court Baroda Exh. 101 wherein market price of Rs. 40.00 was awarded by reference Court where section 4 notification is dated 20th August, 1986 which is subsequent to section 4 notification in case before hand in respect of village Asoj. Therefore, award passed in respect of village Dumad produced by respondents claimants as additional evidence also cannot be compared only on ground that it is for subsequent period because in case before hand relating to village Asoj, section 4 notification is dated 23.2.84 whereas in respect of lands of village Dumad, section 4 notification is dated 20th August, 1986, about two years subsequent to Section 4 notification in case before hand. Therefore, award in respect of lands of village Dumad is also not comparable which has been relied upon by respondents claimants. Therefore, award in respect of lands of village Dumad is also not comparable which has been relied upon by respondents claimants. According to my opinion, additional evidence produced by appellant and respondent claimants are not comparable with present impugned award on ground that in respect of village Manjusar, in absence of evidence as regards potentiality and fertility of land, said award cannot be taken into consideration and further, there is distance of 4 km and there is no positive evidence led by appellant before reference Court that fertility and potentiality of land of village Asoj were same and similar to that of village Manjusar. Similarly in case of Dumad also, section 4 notification was published subsequently, after about two years and, therefore, same cannot be taken into consideration while examining impugned award in respect of village Asoj. Therefore, as per discussion made above, additional evidence produced by appellant as well as respondents claimants cannot be taken into consideration as not comparable with present award in respect of lands of village Asoj, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara. Reference Court has, in present award which is under challenge, considered evidence of witness Harmanbhai in detail and claimants have established their case by leading proper evidence before reference Court vide Exh. 18 and producing relevant documents village form 7/12, with regard to crops taken by claimants from lands under acquisition Exh. 20 and also considered annual report of APMC Dabhoi Exh. 21 against which, there was no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before reference Court except oral evidence of witness for appellant at Exh. 22 SJ Patel and one witness Panchsheel Shah Exh. 23 who were having no documentary evidence to establish that award made by land acquisition officer is reasonable, proper and adequate and requires no enhancement. Shri SJ Patel, witness for appellant, admitted in his cross examination that he was not in service at the time of acquisition of lands of claimants and he has never visited site and he has no any personal knowledge about fertility and potentiality or geographical situation of acquired lands. He was deposing before reference Court only on basis of record available in office. It was also admitted by him that lands of claimants were divided in two parts due to construction of Narmada Canal and no additional compensation was paid to those claimants whose lands were divided into two parts because of acquisition. He was deposing before reference Court only on basis of record available in office. It was also admitted by him that lands of claimants were divided in two parts due to construction of Narmada Canal and no additional compensation was paid to those claimants whose lands were divided into two parts because of acquisition. Another witness examined on behalf of appellant before reference Court namely Shri Panchsheel Shah Exh.23 is also having no personal knowledge about potentiality and fertility of lands under acquisition and he has also not visited site and he is also unaware about geographical situation of acquired lands. Both witnesses examined on behalf of appellant before reference Court admitted that lands of claimants were divided into two parts on account of construction of Narmada Canal which was reducing saleability of lands of claimants and was affecting production of crops and for that, no compensation was paid to such claimants and, thus, there was no positive or rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before reference Court against evidence of witness Harmanbhai and, therefore, according to my opinion, reference Court has rightly considered evidence on record and has rightly appreciated same considering Annual Report of APMC Dabhoi and has properly worked out gross income per Vigha and thereafter rightly deducted 50 % towards cost per vigha and, therefore, according to my opinion, reference Court has rightly and properly dealt with matter and has rightly come to conclusion that award passed by land acquisition officer is inadequate, unreasonable and has rightly granted additional compensation of Rs. 18.50 over and above compensation of Rs. 2.50 granted by land acquisition officer. In doing so, reference Court has not committed any error which would require interference of this court. However, considering consent given by learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel as recorded herein above, direction in respect of grant 1/6th of market value of claimants’ acquired land being a damage suffered for severance of their land is hereby set aside only on basis of consent given by learned Advocate Mr. However, considering consent given by learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel as recorded herein above, direction in respect of grant 1/6th of market value of claimants’ acquired land being a damage suffered for severance of their land is hereby set aside only on basis of consent given by learned Advocate Mr. Patel for claimants and rest of award made by reference Court is confirmed as it is and, therefore, appeals filed by appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer are partly allowed to aforesaid extent only with clarification that claimants are not entitled to get compensation of 1/6th of market value of their acquired land for severance of their lands but respondents claimants are entitled all other benefits as per award made by reference court. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appellant is directed to deposit amount of compensation before reference Court immediately if it has not been deposited so far. R&P, if any, be sent back to reference Court immediately. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.