JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('The Act' for short). the appellants take exception to the award dated 3rd July, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 126/1997 by which the reference under Section 18 of The Act is rejected. 3. The appellants are the legal representatives of Krishna Sawant Subhedar ('the applicant' for short) who was co-owner in respect of the property bearing Survey No.52/14 situated in Naroa village and had 50% share therein. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of The Act published in the official gazette dated 23rd July, 1991, large tracts of lands were acquired by the State Government for Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. An area admeasuring 7250 square metres of land bearing Survey No.52/14 of Naroa village was part of the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 7th April, 1994 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. The applicant sought reference under Section 18 of The Act and claimed Rs.60/- per square metre. 4. In Land Acquisition Case No. 126/1997, the applicant examined himself and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. In his evidence, he stated that he had two sale deeds to support his claim of Rs.60/- per square metre. In one sale deed, the rate was Rs.25/- per square metre and in another sale deed, the rate was Rs.40/- per square metre. He also deposed about the location and facilities available around the acquired portion of land. He also deposed about the existence of trees in the acquired land and stated that the average income from cashew trees was Rs.6,000/- and from other trees for Rs.2,000/- approximately. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondent herein. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence held that the applicant had not proved that he was entitled for higher compensation and consequently, rejected the reference. 5. Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Reference Court in as much as the applicant was not permitted to produce two sale deeds upon which reliance was sought. 5. Mr. Mashelkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Reference Court in as much as the applicant was not permitted to produce two sale deeds upon which reliance was sought. According to the learned Counsel, serious prejudice has been caused to the applicant in view of the fact that he was not allowed to produce certified copies of the two sale deeds upon which he had placed reliance. In support of this submission, Mr. Mashelkar relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Prithaviraj s/o. Shaktishinh Khomne and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another: 2011(2) ALL MR 665. 6. Per contra, Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award since, the applicant did not produce any evidence by way of sale deeds before the Reference Court and there is no material on record to establish that the Reference Court has disallowed the applicant from producing the said sale deeds. 7. In view of the rival submissions, following point arises for determination of the appeal. "Whether the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Reference Court for giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to lead evidence by way of two sale deeds ?" 8. Perusal of the evidence of Shankar Subhedar AW1 discloses that in his evidence he made reference to two sale deeds and stated that in terms of the one sale deed, the rate was Rs.25/- per square metre and in terms of the second sale deed, the rate was Rs.40/- per square metre. There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the stand taken by the appellants that any attempt was made by the applicant before the Reference Court to produce the two sale deeds or any one of them and the Reference Court rejected the prayer of the applicant. It is well settled that the records of the Court are conclusive in nature and neither Advocate nor litigant is entitled to contradict it except before the judge himself as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another; 19S2 SC 1249. The ratio of the said judgment has been also followed by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another; 19S2 SC 1249. The ratio of the said judgment has been also followed by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments. This being the legal position, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mashelkar that the applicant before the Reference Court was not given an opportunity to produce the two sale deeds upon which he had placed reliance. It is axiomatic that a party, who wants to produce evidence, oral or documentary, has to tender the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the said evidence, the Court Tribunal has to decide the matter. In case the Court disallows production of relevant evidence and the appellate Court finds that the said evidence was relevant, no doubt, the appellate Court is entitled to remand the matter to give an opportunity to the said party to produce the said evidence. This is not the case in the present case. 9. In so far as the authority in the case of Prithaviraj Khomne (supra) relied upon by Mr. Mashelkar is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the applicant. In the said case, reference was dismissed on account of absence of Advocate for the petitioner on the date of hearing and the Reference Court closed the evidence and dismissed the petition. In the present case, evidence was led on behalf of the applicant and the same was considered by the Reference Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the judgment in the case of Prithaviraj Khomne (supra) does not advance the case of the appellants. I, therefore, do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Mashelkar that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Reference Court for giving opportunity to the appellants to produce the two sale deeds to which reference was made by the applicant in his evidence. In my considered opinion, the Reference Court was justified in holding that the applicant had not led any evidence to prove that he was entitled to higher compensation than the one granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is well settled that the burden to prove that the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate is squarely on the party claiming the higher compensation. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. It is well settled that the burden to prove that the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate is squarely on the party claiming the higher compensation. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.