JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing on behalf of respondent-claimant. After considering submissions made by both learned Advocates, these appeals are admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel waives service of notice on behalf of respondent-claimant. With consent of both learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, matters have been taken up for final hearing today. 2. The appellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 223 of 1990 to No. 226 of 1990 and No. 229 of 1990 to No. 231 of 1990. Main Land Reference Case No. 223 of 1990, exh. 27, decided on 25th October 2005. The Reference Court, Vadodara has awarded market price of acquired land Rs. 1,30,000/- per hector being Rs. 13/- per sq. mtr. (an additional amount @ Rs. 1,22,000/- per hector, which comes to Rs. 12.20ps. per sq. mtr.). 3. Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that land of original claimants situated at village: Chandranagar, Tal. : Savli, Dist. : Vadodara was acquired for the purpose of construction of main canal of Narmada Project. Section 4 Notification is dated 26th December 1983 and Land Acquisition Officer has passed award in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1983 dated 30th June 1986, where Rs. 8,000/- per hector had been awarded for acquiring land against which, reference has been made by claimant, where Rs. 1,30,000/- has been awarded per hector inclusive of market value already awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi raised contention before this Court challenging award passed by Reference Court that Reference Court has committed gross error by not considering sale transactions of last five years and has also not given any cogent reason as to why Reference Court has deferred with award passed by Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that Reference Court has committed gross error in awarding amount of compensation for severance as there is no damage caused to lands of claimants. Even value of land is not decreased and agricultural cost is also not increased. Therefore, Reference Court has committed gross error in awarding amount for fragment in favour of claimants. He submitted that Reference Court has committed gross error in awarding amount of compensation for severance as there is no damage caused to lands of claimants. Even value of land is not decreased and agricultural cost is also not increased. Therefore, Reference Court has committed gross error in awarding amount for fragment in favour of claimants. The claimants have not produced any evidence to show that due to severance, value of land is decreased and they are not in a position to continue their agricultural activities etc. The claimants have not proved their case that they are entitled to more compensation because no documentary evidence produced in respect to same. He also submitted that Reference Court has failed to appreciate that yield method, which can be referred only when there is no other evidence in form of sale transaction or opinion of experts available. He also raised contention that Reference Court has failed to appreciate that best evidence to prove is what a willing purchaser would pay for land under acquisition would be the evidence of sales of comparable properties, proximate in time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing same or similar advantages and subject to same or similar disadvantages. Market value is the price of property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by special needs of a particular purchaser. He submitted that where definite material is not forthcoming either in a shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1) or otherwise, Court has no alternative but to fall back on the method of valuation by capitalisation. He submitted that Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation after taking into consideration all relevant aspects i.e. location, potentiality, nature of land, comparable sale instances and considering five years Sale Deeds also while fixing market price. However, Reference Court has not given any cogent reason for not considering five years sale instances, which were relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer. No reason is given by Reference Court why Reference Court has deferred with award passed by Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing for respondent-claimant has submitted that Reference Court has rightly considered evidence of claimant for determining amount of compensation on yield basis as there is no contrary evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. No reason is given by Reference Court why Reference Court has deferred with award passed by Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing for respondent-claimant has submitted that Reference Court has rightly considered evidence of claimant for determining amount of compensation on yield basis as there is no contrary evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. He submitted that Reference Court, in detail, examined this question in para 9 to 12 and on that basis compensation has been worked out. For that, according to him, Reference Court has not committed any error which requires interference of this Court. He submitted that severance aspect has been properly established by claimants, which has been rightly considered by Reference Court and that fact has been admitted by witnesses of appellant that due to said acquisition, land had become fragment, which adversely affected value of land in question and also it increased agricultural expenses and decreased income of claimants. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel also relied upon one decision of this Court in 22 GLR 590 in case of Amir Bibi wd./o. Hajiabdul Karim v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, where Division Bench of this Court has considered that major portion of land acquired, which injurious affection about remaining lands and it extents of depreciation in value and expert evidence essential. However, if expert evidence is not available, Court can make reasonable guess from evidence on record. The relevant discussion in para 5 is quoted as under: "5. In First Appeal No. 408/75, the claimants have also assailed the decision of the learned trial Judge by which he disallowed the claim for injurious affection. The claimants submit that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that they were not entitled to any damages (that is to say compensation) for the severance of their lands. They have claimed Rs. 3/- per sq. metre as severance charges. The only evidence led by the claimants is the deposition of Abdulrehrnan Haji (Exh. 24) who deposed that Rs. 3/- per sq. metre has been claimed for injurious affection for severance. The learned trial Judge observed in his judgment while discussing Point No. 5 that except the bare word of the claimant No. 4, Abdulrehman Haji, there is no evidence to show the precise nature and extent of the injurious affection. 24) who deposed that Rs. 3/- per sq. metre has been claimed for injurious affection for severance. The learned trial Judge observed in his judgment while discussing Point No. 5 that except the bare word of the claimant No. 4, Abdulrehman Haji, there is no evidence to show the precise nature and extent of the injurious affection. He also observed that there is no evidence that the margin was required to be kept under the rules framed under the Land Revenue Code. Consequently, he disallowed this claim for injurious affection. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. Nanavati, fairly accepted that on account of the splitting up of the claimants' lands on account of the laying down of the road through the acquired lands in question there would certainly be injurious affection, but his argument was that it was for the claimants to prove the extent of injurious affection and that if the claimants have chosen not to do so, it would not be open to the Court to enter into the field of conjecture in determining the extent of injurious affection. We have considered the argument of Mr. Nanavati and he is right when he submits that if the claimants had examined an expert, he could have given us an idea about the extent of the depreciation in value which the remaining land is likely to suffer on account of injurious affection. But it cannot be gainsaid that even if the expert had been examined, he would have to enter into a guess work to reach a precise opinion about the extent of severance. The value of the expert's evidence is that it assists the Court in reaching a particular conclusion where technical assistance is necessary. However,, it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that where expert assistance is not available and where a reasonable guess can be made from whatever evidence that is on record, the Court would be precluded from doing so only because the expert evidence is not led in a particular case, We have perused certified copy of the sketch which is to be found at Exh, 67. U discloses that the proposed road splits up the claimants' land hearing Survey No. 376 into two parts and we further find that both of them are rendered deshaped. The southern piece is triangular in shape while the northern piece acquires an awkward shape. U discloses that the proposed road splits up the claimants' land hearing Survey No. 376 into two parts and we further find that both of them are rendered deshaped. The southern piece is triangular in shape while the northern piece acquires an awkward shape. It also appears that a large chunk from the claimants' land is acquired and the resultant two pieces are comparatively of very small size. The consequent injurious affection would consist of the fact that the remaining two pieces will have a reduced sale ability in the market. In view of the fact that the land does not remain a compact and a composite block, the potentiality of its residential and commercial development would also be affected. Now, so far as the potential harm to the claimants is concerned, even for an expert it would remain a guess as there cannot be an instance to provide guidance. In such cases, necessarily the injurious affection is required to be estimated on individual basis and a search for a guideline from an instance would be a futile attempt as indeed BO instance can be found for a loss or damage which stands on a peculiar and special footing. In such circumstances, we are of the view that damage suffered by the claimants cannot go uncompensated altogether and we must make our best endeavour to mete out justice to them, although we must be on a guard in doing so as our conclusion must be based on a broad basis and common sense inference. We are, therefore, of the opinion having taken the pros and cons of the questions into account that if we allow the claimants the compensation for injurious affection to the extent of Rs. 21/- per sq. metre, it would serve the purpose. The market value of the acquired land is reached on the basis of the instances and now our estimate of the injurious affection to the remaining portion works out at less then 1/6th of it and it appears to us that seeing from this point of view also our estimate is fair and reasonable." 7. I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates and I have also perused award passed by Reference Court. The Reference Court has decided matter on basis of evidence on record. I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates and I have also perused award passed by Reference Court. The Reference Court has decided matter on basis of evidence on record. The appellant had appeared before Reference Court and filed objections raising contention that petitions filed by claimant are not bona fide and not in proper form and relied upon award passed by Land Acquisition Officer dated 30th June 1986. According to appellant, surrounding lands of acquired land is not developed and there is no any kind of facility. Therefore, Land Acquisition Officer has not committed any error, which requires interference of this Court. 8. After considering objections raised by appellant, Reference Court has framed issues and decided matter after considering evidence from both sides. Before Reference Court one Muljibhai Bhailalbhai Patel is examined at exh. 13, certified copies of Village Form No. 7/12 of acquired land for showing different crops produced at exh. 16/1 to 16/11, certified copy of Village Form No. 16 of acquired lands for showing wells, tubewells and ponds for irrigation facility in the acquired Land at exh. 17, certified copy of statement of APMC showing price of crops for year 1984/85 to 1986/87 at exh. 18. On behalf of appellant, one witness Maheshbhai S. Joshi, Land Acquisition Officer was examined at exh. 22 and on behalf of opponent no. 2, one Kiritbhai B. Shah, Dy. Engineer was examined at exh. 21. Thereafter, written arguments have been placed on record vide exh. 26 by claimants. Both learned Advocates orally argued before Reference Court. The Reference Court has relied upon certain decisions of this Court in para 8. Thereafter, Reference Court has discussed evidence on record in para 9 to 12, how amount of compensation has been worked out on basis of yield method, considering various evidence produced by claimants. Therefore, it is relevant and necessary to consider para 9 to 12, where Reference Court has given detailed reasons in support of this conclusion. Therefore, para 9 to 12 are quoted as under: "(9) On behalf of all the claimants, Shri Narendrabhai Ambalal Patel, claimant of L.R. No. 223/90 has stated in his deposition vide Exh. 13 that the lands of the claimants situated in the village Chandranagar, Ta. Savli, Dist. Therefore, para 9 to 12 are quoted as under: "(9) On behalf of all the claimants, Shri Narendrabhai Ambalal Patel, claimant of L.R. No. 223/90 has stated in his deposition vide Exh. 13 that the lands of the claimants situated in the village Chandranagar, Ta. Savli, Dist. Vadodara were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the construction of Narmada Canal and for that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 26/12/1983 and the same was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act. He has stated that after serving the claimants with the notices under Section 9, the Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 30/06/1986 awarded the compensation at Rs. 8,000/- per Hector. He has deposed that the there is a facility of irrigation and they were irrigated the lands by getting water from the wells & tube wells situated in the sim of their lands, and thus the lands under acquisition were irrigated as well as fertile lands and the claimants were raising crops viz. Cotton & tuver which shows at Exh. 16/1 to Exh. 16/11. He has also deposed that there is a pakka road in the village. There is also school, library, Cooperative societies & Electricity in the village and also connected roads with taluka and district place and the village Chandranagar is also connected with State High Way, and therefore, claimants have demanded for Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hector at the time of acquisition of their lands. That the actual market value of the lands surrounding to the acquired lands have gone high. That the market value of their acquired lands was to be evaluated at Rs. 8,000/- per Hector at the time of acquisition. He has also deposed that the lands belonging to the claimants were divided in two pieces due to construction of canal and they have caused injurious affection for severance of their lands and therefore, they have also claimed severance charges. (10) As against this, the opponent no.1's witness Shri Maheshkumar Joshi in his deposition vide Exh. 22 has deposed that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and proper and the claimants were heard before declaring the award. However, he has admitted in her cross-examination that he was not in service at the time of acquisition lands. (10) As against this, the opponent no.1's witness Shri Maheshkumar Joshi in his deposition vide Exh. 22 has deposed that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and proper and the claimants were heard before declaring the award. However, he has admitted in her cross-examination that he was not in service at the time of acquisition lands. He has also admitted that the lands of the claimants were divided in two pieces due to construction of canal and no additional compensation was paid to the claimants. (11) Witness Shri Kiritkumar Jethalal Shah Dy. Engineer on behalf of the opponent no.2 has admitted in his deposition, at Exh. 21 that the lands of the claimants were divided in two parts on account of construction of canal, therefore, the claimants have to move 1/2 Kms. to enter in their farm and no such compensation was to be paid to the claimants. During his examination in cross, it is admitted by him that he has no personal knowledge about the fertility and geographical situation of the acquired land he has deposed from the records available in the office. (12) 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 or other evidence to determine the market value of the acquired lands. So, in absence of such evidence, this Court has to rely upon the agricultural income derived from the acquired lands. That the claimant's witness Shri Muljibhai Bhailalbhai Patel in his deposition, at Exh. 13 has deposed that the claimants were raising crops of cotton and tuver before acquisition of their lands. That the claimants have produced the village form No. 7/12 with regards to the crops taken by them on the lands under acquisition, at Exh. 16/1 to Exh. 16/11. According to the claimants, they were earning additional income by selling cattle food from the crops of tuver. That the claimants have also relied on the statement of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Savli which is produced at Exh. 18 showing the price of the crops prevailed at the time of acquisition. It is also submitted by the claimants that they were irrigated the lands by getting water from the wells & tube wells situated in the sim of their lands which is shown at Exh. 18 showing the price of the crops prevailed at the time of acquisition. It is also submitted by the claimants that they were irrigated the lands by getting water from the wells & tube wells situated in the sim of their lands which is shown at Exh. 21 and they were earning the gross income from the agricultural produced as such: Name of the crop Gross income/per bingha (1) Cotton : Rs. 7000/- (2) Tuver + Cattle food : Rs. 7000/- Rs. 6000 + 1000) 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: Name of the crop Net income after 50% deduction (per bingha) (1) Cotton : Rs. 3500/- (2) Tuver + Cattle food : Rs. 3500/- (Rs. 3000 + 500) Total Rs. 7000/- The opponents have not produced any evidence contrary to the agricultural income as described by the claimants. So, relying upon the net yield of income, it would be proper method to apply multiplier of 10 as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for evaluating the market value of the acquired land. Then, if we apply multiplier of 10, the net annual income would come to Rs. 70,000/- per Vingha (Rs. 7000 x 10) for two crops i.e. Cotton and Tuver, which would be just and proper market value in per Guntha, the amount of Rs. 70,000/- 24 Guntha (1 Vingha is equivalent to 24 Guntha), it would come to Rs. 2,916/- per Guntha. So, to find out the average income per crop, the total income of Rs. 2,916/- divided by two crops (i.e. cotton & tuver) then it would come to Rs. 1,458/- per Guntha for one crop. Herein this case, the claimants have claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- per Hector for their acquired lands, on the contrary, the claimants could prove only Rs. 1,45,800/- per Hector. But, while fixing the actual market price of the acquired land, I am of the opinion that, factors like natural calamities and scarcity are required to be kept in mind, so, if an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- per Hector i.e. Rs. 13/- per Sq. Mtr. 1,45,800/- per Hector. But, while fixing the actual market price of the acquired land, I am of the opinion that, factors like natural calamities and scarcity are required to be kept in mind, so, if an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- per Hector i.e. Rs. 13/- per Sq. Mtr. would be awarded to the claimants for their acquired land, it will serve the purpose." 9. The Reference Court has also considered question of severance by examining evidence of Shri Mahesh Joshi, witness of appellant at exh. 22. He admitted that lands of claimants were divided in two pieces due to construction of canal and no additional compensation was paid to claimant for this fragment. One witness Shri Kiritbhai Shah, Dy. Engineer also admitted in exh. 21 that he has no personal knowledge about fertility and geographical situation of acquired land and he has deposed as per the record available in office. He also admitted the fact that lands of claimants divided in two parts on account of construction of canal. Therefore, claimants have to move 1/2 kilometers to enter in their farm and no such compensation was to be paid to the claimants. The Reference Court has also made it clear in para 12 that, being admitted fact that neither claimants nor opponents have produced any evidence with regard to Sale Deeds or other evidence to determine market value of agricultural lands. So, in absence of such evidence, Reference Court has rightly relied upon agricultural income derived from acquired land. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion made in para 9 to 12, according to my opinion, in absence of Sale Deeds, Reference Court has rightly considered evidence of claimants, which has been produced before Reference Court and for that Reference Court has not committed any error, which requires interference of this Court. Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi heavily raised contention that for severance there is no evidence led by claimants and that the land in question after acquisition put in an adverse situation, his income has been decreased and value of land has also been decreased and agricultural expenses have been increased. He relied upon page 17 Schedule and submitted that in fact there is no severance because of acquisition and there was no small piece of land remained after acquisition but a sufficient land remained, which can be utilised independently for agricultural purpose. He referred item no. He relied upon page 17 Schedule and submitted that in fact there is no severance because of acquisition and there was no small piece of land remained after acquisition but a sufficient land remained, which can be utilised independently for agricultural purpose. He referred item no. 5, where, sufficient land was remaining, which cannot be considered to be a severance because of acquisition. 11. I have considered his submissions and I have also considered evidence of appellant. Both witnesses, who have admitted that because of acquisition, land of claimant has become severance and for that no additional amount of compensation is awarded by Land Acquisition officer. The figure which relied by learned Additional Government Pleader is as under, which is notified in item no. 5: L.R. No. Remaining land after acquisition which is fragment (1) 223 o 1990 4-025-39 (2) 224 of 1990 3-92-47 & 3-24-82 (3) 226 of 1990 4-41-34 12. This schedule, which has been relied by learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi for that there was no submission made by learned Advocate for appellant before Reference Court. Where their witnesses have admitted in terms that because of acquisition of land in question, severance, which adversely affected the value of land in question and also it affected agricultural products and income of claimants, when these facts have been admitted by other side then question of proving it by claimants does not arise. Therefore, contention raised by learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi that claimants have not produced any documentary evidence that because of severance, they have put to disadvantage situation cannot be accepted. The contention raised by learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi that how much crops have been obtained in quantity not established by claimants before Reference Court. This contention is also cannot be accepted in light of detail evidence given by claimants, which remained unchallenged because there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court and no contrary evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. Therefore, contention raised by Mr. Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Therefore, according to my opinion, Reference Court has rightly examined the matter on appreciation of evidence. Such reasoning cannot be made baseless and perverse. On the contrary finding given by Reference Court based on legal evidence and it cannot be considered to be arbitrary. Therefore, contention raised by Mr. Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Therefore, according to my opinion, Reference Court has rightly examined the matter on appreciation of evidence. Such reasoning cannot be made baseless and perverse. On the contrary finding given by Reference Court based on legal evidence and it cannot be considered to be arbitrary. The amount of compensation which has been awarded by Reference Court being reasonable, just and proper does not on higher side. Therefore, considering acquisition of 1983, such amount, after losing land by claimants, cannot be considered to be in any manner unreasonable. On the contrary, reasonable amount of compensation is awarded by Reference Court, based on legal evidence. Therefore, no error is committed by Reference Court, which requires interference of this Court. Therefore, there is no substance in First Appeals filed by appellant. Hence, First Appeals are dismissed. 13. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel requests this Court to direct other side to deposit amount of compensation as early as possible because this being acquisition of 1983. I have considered his submission and it is directed to appellant to deposit amount of compensation based on award passed by Reference Court as early as possible but no later than 02 (two) months from date of receiving copy of order. Appeals dismissed.