Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and award dated 17.10.2000 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Reference Case No. 308 of 1987 whereby the Reference Court awarded additional amount by way of compensation to the original claimants at the rate of Rs. 1500 per R.A. The original Opponent No. 3 – Kaka-baa Kalabudh Charitable Trust as well as the original Opponent No. 4 – Administrator, Kaka-baa Kalabudh Charitable Trust (the Acquiring Body) felt that the Reference Court committed error in awarding additional amount of compensation to the original claimants and, therefore, preferred this appeal. 2. Certain agricultural lands belonging to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original claimants) situated in the outskirt of Village : Utraj, Taluka : Hansot, District : Bharuch proposed to be acquired for expansion of building of the appellants – original Opponent Nos. 3 and 4, Kaka-baa Kalabudh Charitable Trust Hospital. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) came to be published on 15.01.1985 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 12.06.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry to determine just and fair amount of compensation and by award dated 30.12.1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 190 per R.A. The original claimants felt that the amount offered to them by way of compensation was quite inadequate and meager and, therefore, they applied for reference and their reference was numbered and registered as Land Reference Case No. 308 of 1987 and they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2471 per R.A. 3. Before the Reference Court, the original claimant No. 1 – Chhaganbhai Vanmali came to be examined at Ex.19, the claimants examined 4 more witnesses namely Thakorbhai Govindbhai Rami at Ex.45, Prakashbhai Durlabhbhai at Ex.47, Khushalbhai Lalabhai at Ex.54 and Gautambhai Madhavbhai at Ex.76. The claimants produced necessary documentary evidence like deed of Power of Attorney, Map of the land, Extract of revenue record, Certificate of Gram Panchayat, Hansot, etc. The claimants produced necessary documentary evidence like deed of Power of Attorney, Map of the land, Extract of revenue record, Certificate of Gram Panchayat, Hansot, etc. After evaluating oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the Reference Court took into consideration the fact that the land acquired was agricultural land which was used for cultivation and further took into consideration the panchnama of the land as well as in paragraph No. 16 of the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court observed that Block No. 33 admeasuring 7 Acres and 10 Gunthas was sold in the year 1981 for consideration of Rs. 61,837 and land of Ganesh Organizer Industry was acquired by the Government admeasuring 3885 sq.mtr at the rate of Rs. 47,752 i.e. approximately Rs. 3000 per R.A. The Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500 per R.A. 4. Mr. G. M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants – original Opponent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that the claimants neither produced any sale instances nor copy of the previous award nor any evidence to the nature of the crop cultivated by them in the acquired land and the quantity of such crop and its sale and how much was earning out of the agricultural operations of the claimants. Mr.Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the case is as good as of no evidence. 4.1. Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the claimants examined witnesses, but even through the evidence of the witnesses namely Sarpanch as well as Talati-Cum-Secretary, neither any evidence regarding any sale instances was forthcoming nor any evidence about any previous award was forthcoming. The witnesses deposed that the land was used for cultivation of various crops, but no other datas are available to show as to how much was the production of the crop, what was the income the claimants used to receive by selling the agricultural produce etc. The witnesses deposed that the land was used for cultivation of various crops, but no other datas are available to show as to how much was the production of the crop, what was the income the claimants used to receive by selling the agricultural produce etc. It is submitted that the claimants examined Sarpanch of Village : Hansot and according to evidence of Sarpanch, the acquired land was used by the claimants for flower plantation and according to the Sarpanch, the profession of the claimants was a gardener. 4.2. Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the claimants failed to adduce any evidence to show that they were entitled to claim more amount than what was offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court relied upon the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, but that award is not an evidence, that award is only an offer. Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Reference under Section 18 of the Act is not an appeal over the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, any material relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award, cannot be relied upon by the Reference Court, unless the same is produced and proved. To substantiate such submission, Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon a case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652 and the case of Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, Ahmedabad vs. Gordhanbhai Bhalabhai Patel, reported in 1983 (1) GLR 607 . Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Ms. Shachi Mathur, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (original Opponent Nos. 1 and 2) adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. G. M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants and submitted that while declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration all the relevant factors, while determining the just and fair amount of compensation and before the Reference Court, the claimants failed to adduce any evidence to show that they were entitled to get any more amount by way of compensation. 6. Per-contra, Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6. Per-contra, Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original claimants) fully supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and stated that the claimants by examining themselves as well as by examining material witnesses and by producing documents before the Reference Court, proved that the amount of compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and insufficient and that they were entitled to claim more amount by way of compensation. It is submitted that the claimants examined independent witnesses namely Sarpanch and Talati-Cum-Secretary of the Village and through their evidence, the claimants successfully established that the land was used for agricultural purpose and was not waste land and the claimants used to receive income out of the sale of the agricultural produce. Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that even considering the revenue record, it has been established that the land was used for agricultural purpose. There was adequate irrigation facility as well as at the time when the land came to be acquired and the actual and physical possession was taken, at that time, a panchnama was drawn and even in the panchnama, there is the reference of standing crop of Tuver. It is submitted that the Reference Court properly evaluated and analyzed the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500 per R.A. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have examined Record & Proceedings in context with the submissions advanced by the rival side. 8. Examining the record of the case, it transpires that the claimant – Chhaganbhai Vanmali examined himself at Ex.19. Considering his evidence as a whole, he stated that in his land which came to be acquired, there was a well and there were flower plants in his land. He also deposed about the surrounding development and stated that his acquired land was situated in a developed area. He deposed that the land of Ganesh Organizer Industry was situated adjacent to his land and the land of said Organizer was in two parcels namely admeasuring 3885 sq.mtr and 4048 sq.mtr respectively and those lands were sold at the consideration of Rs. 47,752 and Rs. 49,751 respectively. He deposed that the land of Ganesh Organizer Industry was situated adjacent to his land and the land of said Organizer was in two parcels namely admeasuring 3885 sq.mtr and 4048 sq.mtr respectively and those lands were sold at the consideration of Rs. 47,752 and Rs. 49,751 respectively. He deposed that in his land, over-and-above cultivating various crops, he used to cultivate flower plants. However, throughout his deposition, he nowhere stated that what was the yield of the crop and of the flower from his land. He nowhere stated as to where he used to sell his crop and the flowers and what was his income. It is true that in his oral evidence, he deposed about some sale transaction of lands pertaining to Ganesh Organizer Industry, but neither original nor the copy of any sale deeds came to be produced by the claimants. Perusing the record of the Reference Court, it transpires that at Ex.29 a sale index prepared by Talati-Cum-Secretary is produced showing the index regarding the sale transactions, but in support thereof, the claimants did not produce any evidence in the form of either original sale-deeds or copies thereof, nor the claimants examined either the buyer or vendor in support of such evidence. The claimants examined said Talati-Cum-Secretary Khushalbhai Lalbhai at Ex.54 and considering his entire deposition, nowhere he referred to the sale index at Ex.25 nor even adduced any oral evidence pursuant to the said sale index. According to his evidence, Village : Utraj is a half Km. away from acquired land and even Hansot is a half Km. away from acquired land. If that be so, the claimants could have procured the best evidence regarding the sale instances and could have produced relevant sale-deeds and could have examined buyer or vendor in support of such material. It is pertinent to note that here is not a case of the claimants that no sale instance was available. When such is the situation, the claimants could have proved their case by producing evidence regarding the relevant sale transaction of the agricultural land. 9. The claimants examined their relative namely Thakorbhai Govindbhai Rami at Ex.45, who in his evidence, only stated that the claimants are his relatives and he visited the acquired land and there was development surrounding to the said land. His evidence is practically of no use to the claimants. 9. The claimants examined their relative namely Thakorbhai Govindbhai Rami at Ex.45, who in his evidence, only stated that the claimants are his relatives and he visited the acquired land and there was development surrounding to the said land. His evidence is practically of no use to the claimants. The claimants then examined Sarpanch of different Village : Hansot at Ex.47. According to his evidence, the nature of the profession of the claimants was gardener and according to him, there was flower plants in the acquired land and the claimants used to sell flowers for their earning. He issued certificate to that effect, produced at Ex.48. It is pertinent to note that as per the deposition of the claimant, his nature of profession, was an agricultural and even before the Reference Court it was submitted on behalf of the claimants that they used to cultivate different crops in the land and used to earn their livelihood. However, as per the evidence of the Sarpanch, the nature of profession of the claimants was as a gardener and the claimants used to earn their livelihood by selling flowers. Even through the evidence of Sarpanch, nothing specific is forthcoming about the production of flowers and their price. The claimants relied upon panchnama prepared by the concerned authority at the time when the possession of the acquired land was taken. The panchnama only reveals that there was standing crop of Tuver. Nothing specific is forthcoming as to what would be the approximate production. 10. Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, it clearly transpires that the Reference Court at the first place only re-produced gist of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants. Considering paragraph No. 16 of the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the Reference Court without there being any documentary evidence like sale instances, observed that block No. 33 land in the year 1981 was sold for consideration of Rs. 61,837 and two parcels of land of Ganesh Organizer Industry came to be acquired by the Government approximately at the rate of Rs. 3000 per R.A. As stated above, to substantiate such observation, on the record of the Reference Court, no such sale instances is available nor any comparable award regarding acquisition of land of Ganesh Organizer Industry is available. 61,837 and two parcels of land of Ganesh Organizer Industry came to be acquired by the Government approximately at the rate of Rs. 3000 per R.A. As stated above, to substantiate such observation, on the record of the Reference Court, no such sale instances is available nor any comparable award regarding acquisition of land of Ganesh Organizer Industry is available. In paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court took into consideration a case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Motibhai Mohanbhai reported in 1998 (1) Land Acquisition Laws 91 wherein it was observed that 10% annual rise in price to be considered in case of award or judgment of adjoining village. After observing this, the Reference Court formed an opinion that the claimants were entitled to get Rs. 1500 per R.A. While coming to such circumstances, no reason whatsoever is assigned by the Reference Court. 11. In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a reference under Section 18 is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. Similarly, in the case of Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, Ahmedabad vs. Gordhanbhai Bhalabhai Patel (Supra), this Court in Paragraph No. 7 observed as under: “An award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot become evidence. Award is only an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimant. If the claimant is not satisfied he can request under sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act to make a reference and if he satisfies the Court that he is entitled to a particular market price then alone he succeeds and the judgment is required to be based on the evidence led before the Court and he is not to be guided in any way by whatever may have been stated in the award. The award, therefore, not being the evidence is not required to be read at all.” 12. The award, therefore, not being the evidence is not required to be read at all.” 12. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in light of the entire above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court in the above referred decisions, applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to claim additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500 per R.A. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court deserves to be set aside. 13. However, at this stage, Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants (original Opponent Nos. 3 and 4) submitted that at the time when the instant appeal came to be admitted, this Court directed the appellants to deposit the awarded amount, awarded by the Reference Court and accordingly, the appellants deposited the said awarded amount before the reference Court. Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted on instruction that out of the deposited amount, if the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original claimants) withdraws 50% amount deposited by the appellants before the Reference Court, then the appellants have no objection and remaining 50% amount shall be withdrawn by the appellants. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 17.10.2000 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Reference Case No. 308 of 1987 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As submitted by Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, 50% amount deposited by the appellants and lying with the Reference Court shall be withdrawn by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original claimants) from the Reference Court in accordance with Rules and remaining 50% amount shall be withdrawn by the appellants, original Opponent Nos. 3 and 4 in accordance with Rules.