JUDGMENT : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. 1. Captioned appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in Land Acquisition Reference case nos.49 to 74 of 2002 and other allied references (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) whereby, group of land acquisition reference cases filed by the claimants, came to be partly allowed. Since the issues involved in the captioned group of appeals are common, all the matters, with the consent of the learned advocates, are heard analogously and being decided by this Common Oral Judgment. 2. Briefly stated are the facts: 2.1 Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”) was published in the Government Gazette on 12.06.1997 while, section 6 notification, was published on 30.10.1997. Followed, was the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24.09.1999 and the market value determined, was Rs.3.50/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.5.25/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. 2.2 The claimants, since were aggrieved, approached the Collector and the applications were registered as Land Acquisition Reference case nos.49 of 2002 to 74 of 2002 and other allied matters. All the reference cases were clubbed together, treating Land Acquisition Reference Case no.49 of 2002 as a lead reference. All the references were decided by the impugned judgment and as stated hereinabove, the learned Judge determined the additional compensation at Rs.40.25/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.54.43/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. The total compensation determined, was Rs.43.75/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.59.68/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. Hence, the captioned appeals. 3. While taking this Court to the impugned Judgment, Mr Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that heavy emphasis is laid on the evidence produced by the claimants and the evidence produced by the State Government has been discarded. It is submitted that Exhibit 27, was the oral evidence produced on behalf of the claimants of one Popatbhai Savjibhjai wherein, the stand taken, was that they grow three crops in a year, indicating the amount of Rs.18,000/- for the crop of cotton, Rs.8,000/- for the crop of sesame and Rs.13,000/- for the crop of cumin. It is submitted that Exhibit 27, was the oral evidence produced on behalf of the claimants of one Popatbhai Savjibhjai wherein, the stand taken, was that they grow three crops in a year, indicating the amount of Rs.18,000/- for the crop of cotton, Rs.8,000/- for the crop of sesame and Rs.13,000/- for the crop of cumin. The witness, in his deposition has indicated that they are earning a total of Rs.26,250/- annually; however, it is recorded in the judgment itself that there was no evidence by the claimants substantiating growing and selling of the crops in the open market. It is further submitted that only on the basis of oral evidence of the claimants, the learned Judge has concluded that 30 to 32 tonnes of the crops have been produced; without there being any concrete evidence substantiating the quantity of the crops to the extent of 30 to 35 tonnes. 3.1 It is submitted that in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has recorded regarding the sale instances Exhibits 74 to 76. It is submitted that when there were comparable sale instances available, the learned Judge ought not to have adopted the Yield Method. Also there was sufficient evidence available on the record to suggest that the market value of the land was on a lower side. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shaji Kuriakose and Another vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 650 for the proposition that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation should be preferred than other methods of Capitalisation of Net Income or Expert Opinion Method as it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in open market. 3.2 It is further submitted that though the claim is based on the Yield Method, there is not a single evidence produced by the claimants indicating the nature of the crop grown by them, the sale of crop in the open market or any proceeds of sale have been received. In other words, the claimants have neither produced any invoices indicating the transaction of the sale of the crops nor the quantity of the crops procured. Moreover, the Statement of accounts have not been produced. In other words, the claimants have neither produced any invoices indicating the transaction of the sale of the crops nor the quantity of the crops procured. Moreover, the Statement of accounts have not been produced. Despite which, the learned Judge has accepted the say of the claimants and determined the market value adopting Yield Method. 3.3 It is further submitted that the claimants have not examined any traders and/or any intermediaries with whom the claimants have dealt with in respect of the crops sold in the open market. It is further submitted that the learned Judge, has taken recourse of the guess work which, was unwarranted and concluded about the quantity of the crops grown by the claimants. Assuming that the guess work by the learned Judge, was proper at least, there ought to have been a reasonable deduction, instead, the learned Judge has hardly given 10 to 15 percent deduction. It is further submitted that the evidence produced by the claimants Exhibit 52 of one Anakbhai Alingbhai, the Director of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the APMC”); he in his cross- examination has categorically stated that the price list, Exhibits 48 to 51 are not prepared by him. It is also admitted in his cross- examination that the price list has not been substantiated as to on what basis it has been prepared. It is also admitted that the price list does not bear any outward number, nor it is on the letter pad. It is therefore submitted that such evidence ought not to have been accepted by the learned Judge. 3.4 It is also submitted that after perusing and considering the evidence produced by the claimants, the learned Judge has concluded that the lands were not having sufficient irrigation facilities and hence, guess work adopted by the learned Judge of growing of the crops would be incorrect. It is further submitted that mere production of the abstract of 7/12 forms - vide Exhibits 11 to 37, was not sufficient for coming to the conclusion about the quantum in terms of the finance and the fact of fetching of the price and therefore, 7/12 forms, were wrongly considered for the purpose of determining the crops grown by the claimants. 3.5 It is further submitted that the learned Judge, has taken into account the potential value, locality and price escalation without any evidence produced on the record and proved by the claimants and thereby, the Court has committed an error in awarding the additional compensation. It is also submitted that no evidence was produced by the claimants substantiating the fertility of the land, despite which, merely relying upon Exhibits 54 to 61, the impugned judgment has been passed. Even otherwise, the said evidence, would not apply to the facts of the case. Reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram & Another reported in 2002 (1) G.L.H. 423 , would be misplaced in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shaji Kuriakose (supra) wherein, it has been held and observed that the comparable sales method of valuation, should be preferred as it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land. 3.6 It is further submitted that the evidence Exhibits 126 and 127, ought not to have been discarded considering the fact that the sale transactions give the correct picture of the value of the land in the vicinity which were in the proximity to the date of section 4 notification. Exhibit 127, was the transaction wherein, the land was sold for a meager amount. Both the sale deeds were of the year 1995 and when there was a readily available market value, the learned Judge ought not to have switched over to the Yield Method but to have accepted the sale deeds Exhibits 126 and 127 and accordingly should have determined the market value. The learned Judge, without discussing as to why it would not apply, discarded the same. 4. On the other hand, Mr Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing with Mr Jayraj K. Dhadhal, learned advocate for the claimants, has submitted that the impugned judgment does not warrant interference inasmuch as, the learned Judge has balanced the evidence led by the claimants on one hand and of the defendants on the other. It is submitted that the Government while allotting waste land to the private parties disposed of the land by determining the market value at Rs.94/- to Rs.110/- per sq. mtr. It is submitted that the Government while allotting waste land to the private parties disposed of the land by determining the market value at Rs.94/- to Rs.110/- per sq. mtr. When the land is allotted, determining the market value, it should be adopted after deducting one third of the amount, which would be 73/- to 75/-. Therefore, even after applying permissible deduction, the amount is higher than what has been awarded by the learned Judge. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the 7/12 forms ought not to have been taken into account inasmuch as, the 7/12 forms are prepared by the revenue authorities and the details are incorporated after inspecting the lands of the claimants. It is submitted that even there is an error committed by the learned Judge while noting that there are no wells available in the lands of the claimants. In fact, the bare perusal of the 7/12 forms Exhibits 11 to 37, clearly suggests that in majority of the lands, there are wells and in some of the cases the wells are being used jointly by the adjacent fields. 4.1 It is further submitted that even 7/12 forms for almost all the lands, suggest the nature of crops for three seasons. Considering the said endorsement in the 7/12 forms the learned Judge has rightly applied the Yield Method as per the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra). It is submitted that reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court and accepting the formula, the learned Judge has derived the amount and thereafter has effected 50% deduction towards the expenditure. It is submitted that in the said judgment, even the Court, has allowed the multiplier of 10%. It is submitted that it is permissible to adopt the Yield Method and derive the market value, after effecting necessary deduction towards the expenditure. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the principle applied as per the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra) was erroneous. 4.2 It is submitted that the evidence produced, namely, Exhibits 48 to 51 were the price list prepared by the APMC. The learned Judge, has accepted the price for the years 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 4.2 It is submitted that the evidence produced, namely, Exhibits 48 to 51 were the price list prepared by the APMC. The learned Judge, has accepted the price for the years 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. Nothing has been pointed out as to how, the statements together with the letter are incorrect. It is submitted that for the evidence Exhibit 52 it is sought to be argued that the officer had not prepared the price list; however, when the question was put all what he says is that he had not and naturally it is not the officer who would be preparing the statement. That by itself does not prove that the statement or the price list are incorrect. It is submitted that to say that the price lists, were not on the letter head of the APMC would also be incorrect considering the fact that the price list are part and parcel of the forwarding letter dated 07.12.2010 bearing the outward number. 4.3 It is further submitted that the defendant has produced the evidence at Exhibit 85 of the In-charge Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, who has emphasized on the sale deeds executed of the year 1995; however, the parties to the sale deeds have not been examined. It is further submitted that in the cross- examination, the officer has claimed ignorance as to passing of the river. He has also admitted that the villages Kaniyad and Taldhara share the boundary. He has also stated that he is not aware as to the location of village Haldar. It is further submitted that the witness has also admitted that the Talati had visited the lands personally and recorded the fact of standing crop. In his evidence, it is stated that the lands of which the sale deeds have been produced is not seen by him; however, it is denied that the land was waste and uneven land. It is also admitted that he is not aware under what circumstances the parties have executed the sale deeds. It is further submitted that the sale deed Exhibit 126, is a distress sale considering the fact that the seller has clearly stated that with a view to taking care of the debt he had agreed to sell the land. It is also admitted that he is not aware under what circumstances the parties have executed the sale deeds. It is further submitted that the sale deed Exhibit 126, is a distress sale considering the fact that the seller has clearly stated that with a view to taking care of the debt he had agreed to sell the land. It is submitted that when it is the sale at the lower side it could not have been and rightly not accepted by the learned Judge. As against this, Exhibit 74 was the copy of the sale deed of village Haldar, boundary of which is shared by village Kaniyad. It is submitted that it is by now well settled that when the lands are acquired permanently, the claimants should be allowed the highest exemplars considering the benevolent object of the Act. 4.4 For the proposition of the principles of applying the Yield Method, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra). It is submitted that adopting guess work is a permissible mode. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of O A K Nachimuthu vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode, T N reported in (2001) 9 SCC 582 for the proposition that when it is not possible to determine the compensation with mathematical precision, assessment is bound to involve certain degree of guess work. Therefore, the learned Judge, when has adopted certain degree of guess work, it cannot be faulted with. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1325 for the principle that when the matter relates to the payment of compensation to the land losers, if two views are possible the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities. It is therefore submitted that the view which is favourable to the claimants, should be adopted. 4.5 In the context of Exhibits 126 and 127 produced by the defendants, it is submitted that mere production would not be sufficient unless the parties to the sale deeds are examined. It is therefore submitted that the view which is favourable to the claimants, should be adopted. 4.5 In the context of Exhibits 126 and 127 produced by the defendants, it is submitted that mere production would not be sufficient unless the parties to the sale deeds are examined. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Defence Estate Officer vs. Lilaben W/o Govindbhai Prabhudas reported in (1998) 2 GLR 1100 for the principle that mere production of sale deeds on record and mere exhibiting the same for the purpose of the record, does not and cannot establish the element of "free sale", which is the crucial test of determining whether the transaction reflected in the sale deed truly and in reality reflects a price mutually arrived at between the parties to the transaction. It is well established principle that free sale between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser can only be established by examining either of the vendor or the vendee and that making of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. Therefore, in absence of proving the contents of the sale deed by examining either of the parties to the transaction, cannot be said to be a real proof and has rightly not been considered by the learned Judge. It is submitted that no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Judge in allowing the additional compensation at Rs.40.25/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat Land and Rs.54.43/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat Land. 4.6 It is also submitted that in all, there were 118 references filed and the appeals are preferred only in 67 cases and in remaining 51 cases appeals are not preferred. It is next submitted that the State Government, has accepted the additional compensation determined in those 51 cases and the claimants have been subjected to discrimination which would be impermissible in view of the settled principle. To illustrate First Appeal no.2637 of 2018, was arising out of Land Acquisition Reference case no.68 of 2002 in connection with survey no.259 paiki and the area involved, was 12141 sq. mts. while, in Land Acquisition Reference case no.70 of 2002, with equal area of 12141 sq. mts., the State Government chose not to file an appeal. To illustrate First Appeal no.2637 of 2018, was arising out of Land Acquisition Reference case no.68 of 2002 in connection with survey no.259 paiki and the area involved, was 12141 sq. mts. while, in Land Acquisition Reference case no.70 of 2002, with equal area of 12141 sq. mts., the State Government chose not to file an appeal. It is a clear case of discrimination to set of claimants. Therefore, no error can be said to have been committed and impugned judgment does not warrant interference. 5. Mr Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader in brief response submitted that it is a policy decision taken by the State Government that if amount of compensation involved is less than Rs.10 lacs, no appeal is to be preferred and therefore, Land Acquisition Reference case no.70 of 2002 since was falling within exception, no appeal is filed. In absence of any grievance raised, it would not be correct on the part of the learned advocate to raise the contention about non-filing of the appeal or discrimination considering the fact that in petty cases, the State Government does not file the appeals. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Considered and perused the paper books, Record & Proceedings made available on the record. 7. The Land Acquisition Reference cases were preferred before the Court below wherein, the following issues, in vernacular were formulated, free english translation would be thus: (i) Whether the claimants prove that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, is insufficient; (ii) If the answer is in yes, as to whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation; (iii) Whether there is a bar to the claimants of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Act of 1894. 8. The issue nos.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative while, issue no.3 was answered in the negative. In the proceeding before the Reference Court, the claimants had produced oral evidence, namely, Exhibits 38, 68 and 70 and, following documentary evidence: Sr. no. Documentary Evidence (i) 7/12 forms – Exhibits 11 to 37 and 42 to 46. 8. The issue nos.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative while, issue no.3 was answered in the negative. In the proceeding before the Reference Court, the claimants had produced oral evidence, namely, Exhibits 38, 68 and 70 and, following documentary evidence: Sr. no. Documentary Evidence (i) 7/12 forms – Exhibits 11 to 37 and 42 to 46. (ii) Price list of the APMC, Gota - Exhibits 48 to 51; (iii) Copies of the land reference judgments - Exhibits 54 to 61; (iv) Village map - Exhibit 62; (v) Evidence of Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Mer - Exhibit 65; (vi) Copies of the sale deeds - Exhibits 74 to 78 (vii) Copies of Form no.’H’ Exhibits 79 to 83. 9. On the other hand, oral evidence on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, was Exhibit 85, 125 and documentary evidence, was Exhibits 126 and 127 i.e. the copies of the sale deeds of survey no.207/1 and survey no.174/paiki/1, both of village Kaniyad. 10. The learned Judge, in detail, has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence and the factors available for the purpose of determining the market value. The learned Judge, in the absence of any previous judgments of the Reference Court available with respect to acquired lands of the same village, considered evidence Exhibits 74 to 78. While doing so, the learned Judge, has discussed the location of village Kaniyad and village Haldar and considering the distance, it is noted that village Haldar is adjacent to taluka Botad which is a developed taluka whereas, village Kaniyad is situated at a far off distance from taluka Botad. The learned Judge, therefore, was of the opinion that considering the development the rates of lands of village Haldar is bound to be on a higher side. 11. The learned Judge, thereafter, considered the documents Exhibits 79 to 83 - the Kabulats issued by the State Government in Form ‘H’ of Rule 43 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. The evidence of one Jivanbhai Govindbhai Rathod, was considered wherein, it is stated regarding allotment of the lands by the State Government in the month of March 2000 and determination of the market value ranging from Rs.92.87/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.110 per sq. mtr. The learned Judge noted that the lands were allotted by the State Government for the residential purpose. mtr. to Rs.110 per sq. mtr. The learned Judge noted that the lands were allotted by the State Government for the residential purpose. While accepting the fact that the lands are of the same village; the learned Judge was of the opinion that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is on a lower side compared to the market value determined by the State Government. As regards evidence Exhibits 126 and 127 i.e. the copies of the sale deeds produced by the defendant, the learned Judge, after in depth scrutiny, opined that sale deed was distress sale inasmuch as, it was executed with a view to taking care of the debt of the vendee. The learned Judge, therefore, on overall consideration of the above referred evidence concluded that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was meagre and cannot be accepted. 12. Evidence of one of the claimants - Exhibit 38 was considered in the judgment who, has indicated the nature of the crops and the irrigation facilities available. While referring to the cotton crops, it has been stated that in one vigha approximately 40 to 45 mounds of cotton was grown. Considering the rate of Rs.400 per 20 k.g., in one vigha, the amount derived was Rs.18,000/- approximately. Evidence was made available by the claimant as regards three crops in a year i.e. cotton, sesame and cumin, indicating the quantity of the crops and the prevalent price and with a view to substantiating the same, the claimant, has relied upon the price list - Exhibits 49 to 51 issued by the APMC of the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, respectively. Moreover, the Director of APMC was examined; however, nothing contrary was pointed out. The learned Judge, therefore, while relying upon the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra), adopted the Yield Method and determined the market value. 13. While discussing the evidence - Exhibit 126, the learned Judge, noted that existence of one well and one oil engine, is suggestive of the fact that irrigation facilities are available in the land of which the sale deed was executed. However, in the absence of any clear evidence it cannot be accepted that the well was available. 13. While discussing the evidence - Exhibit 126, the learned Judge, noted that existence of one well and one oil engine, is suggestive of the fact that irrigation facilities are available in the land of which the sale deed was executed. However, in the absence of any clear evidence it cannot be accepted that the well was available. Also, there was nothing on the record except the oral evidence to substantiate that during winter and summer, irrigation facilities were available. Hence, the learned Judge did not accept the growing of three crops in the year but only one and applied the deduction of 50% and allowed 10% multiplier. In paragraph 22, the learned Judge has, in detail, considered the nature of the crops and the expenses incurred. While doing so, the learned Judge also took note of the evidence Exhibit 65 (sic. Exhibit 51) of one Kanjibhai Bhurabhai and categorical reference is made to paragraph 6 of the said evidence wherein, reference is made of harvesting of the crops and their quantity for all the three seasons coupled with the price. The learned Judge, noted evidence Exhibits 49 to 51 i.e. details of yard sale providing the price of the crops, supported by evidence of one Anakbhai Alingbhai, Director of the APMC - Exhibit 52; however, was of the opinion that there is nothing on record to substantiate the nature of the crops and the quantity. The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded further and considered the 7/12 forms produced vide Exhibits 11 to 37 and 42 to 46 in detail and was of the opinion that the claimants have failed to prove that they were growing three crops in a year as well as existence of wells in the fields of the claimants. Pertinently, it may be noted that the finding about the non-existence of wells in the fields of claimants is not in sync with the evidence on record inasmuch as, in majority of 7/12 forms produced, details are provided of the wells and the irrigation facilities. 14. After discussing in length, the learned Judge, in paragraphs 25 and 26, opined thus and free english translation, would be as under: “25. Considering all the above details, the fact that the applicants were growing three crops a year on all the acquired land is not been proved. 14. After discussing in length, the learned Judge, in paragraphs 25 and 26, opined thus and free english translation, would be as under: “25. Considering all the above details, the fact that the applicants were growing three crops a year on all the acquired land is not been proved. In the irrigated land three crops can be grown in a year and it is not naturally possible to grow crops in any other season in the non- irrigated land, except during the monsoon. Therefore, considering the fact that applicants were only growing one crop a year, specially during the monsoon season, in their non-irrigated land, it is required to determine the yield which the applicants were producing from one beegha of land at that time. Considering the evidence on affidavit - exhibit-38, the witness has stated that during the monsoon season, approximately 40 to 45 ‘mounds' of cotton was harvested per beegha when the price of 20 kilograms of cotton was at around Rs. 400. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the yield from one beegha of land, i.e., the quantity of cotton was harvested. Under these circumstances, the yield mentioned by the applicant in oral evidence cannot be considered to be true without any supporting evidence. The applicant has attempted to show the Court a higher yield to demonstrate a greater income for him. Price lists from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee have been submitted as an evidence to prove the price of the produce during that year. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim that the price was higher than what is mentioned in the said price lists. In such circumstances, it appears that an attempt to inflate the yield per beegha land was made with an intention to get higher valuation of the land by claiming higher yield. Therefore, the yield per beegha claimed by the applicants cannot be considered entirely accurate. However, I believe the calculation should be made on yield basis that is approximately 5 to 10 mounds' which is less than the yield stated by him. Therefore, considering the claim of the applicants that approximately 40 to 45 mounds' of cotton was produced from one beegha of land and deducting the yield by 5 to 10 mounds', the calculation can be taken as approximately 35 mounds' per beegha. 26. Therefore, considering the claim of the applicants that approximately 40 to 45 mounds' of cotton was produced from one beegha of land and deducting the yield by 5 to 10 mounds', the calculation can be taken as approximately 35 mounds' per beegha. 26. The applicants have submitted price lists of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Botad vide Exhibit-49 to 51. These lists show the price of cotton per quintal to be between Rs. 1,844/- to Rs. 2,114/-. This supports the claims of applicants that the price of 20 kg of cotton was Rs. 400. Considering the same, when one beegha of land yield approximately 35 mounds' of cotton and a price of 20 kg of cotton is considered as Rs. 400, then the annual income is proved to be Rs. 14,000/- (per bigha). On considering the submissions made by the applicants and principles enunciated in the various judgments of the Honourable High Court of Gujarat, permissible deduction of 50% if allowed, that the net income would be Rs.7,000/-. The net income, if is divided by 1600 sq. mts. Per bigha, amount would be Rs.4.375 per sq. mts and multiplying it by factor 10, the clear amount would be Rs.43.75/- per sq. mts. Considering the same, since the value of the acquired land cannot be determined by any method other than agricultural yield, it is proven that the price of the acquired non- irrigated agricultural land would be Rs.43.75 based on its annual yield. Considering this calculation, the total value of one beegha of agricultural land i.e. 1,600 square meters of agricultural land is Rs. 70,000/-, which appears to be a reasonable price. (This value of Rs. 70,000/- per one beegha is based on the calculation for non-irrigated land, which yields a single crop per year).” 15. The learned Judge, therefore, considered Exhibits 49 to 51 and calculated the quantity of the crops and thereafter, derived the value of the crops and applied 50% deduction towards the expenses and allowed the multiplier of 10. Applying the said method, the additional compensation at Rs.40.25/- per sq. mtr. and total compensation at Rs.43.75/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land was determined. While for Bagayat land, the learned Judge allowed additional compensation of Rs.54.43/- per sq. mtr. and the total compensation awarded was Rs.59.68/- per sq. mtr. 16. Applying the said method, the additional compensation at Rs.40.25/- per sq. mtr. and total compensation at Rs.43.75/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land was determined. While for Bagayat land, the learned Judge allowed additional compensation of Rs.54.43/- per sq. mtr. and the total compensation awarded was Rs.59.68/- per sq. mtr. 16. The issue, therefore, is that whether the learned Judge was right in determining the market value adopting the Yield basis method and correctly determining the additional compensation. Pertinently, the evidence produced on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State Government, was Exhibits 126 and 127 which were the sale deeds and as observed by the learned Judge, one of them was a depressed sale. Moreover, except producing the sale deeds, contents thereof, were not proved by examining the parties to the sale deed. It is well settled that the Court is not bound to act upon the contents of the documents of sale, merely because it was accepted as evidence of transaction, unless the persons connected with such documents give evidence in Court substantiating the same. In the case of P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1995) 2 SCC 305 , referred to in the case of Defense Estate Officer vs. Lilaben reported in (1998) 2 GLH 279 , in paragraph 19, it is observed thus: “19. Certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, but for the above provision could have been only secondary evidence which could have been accepted by the court when primary evidence relating to the original documents were shown to be unavailable. Section 5 1-A of the LA Act, as seen therefrom, is enacted to enable the parties in land acquisition cases, to produce certified copies of documents, to get over the difficulty of parties, in that, persons in possession of the original documents would not be ready to put them in courts, for when once they are put in Court, they cannot be sure, when they could take their return from Court. However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the document is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document does not dispense with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such documents produced in court in examining witnesses connected with documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the document is accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document does not dispense with the need for a party relying upon the certified copies of such documents produced in court in examining witnesses connected with documents to establish their genuineness and the truth of their contents. Therefore, the certified copies of registered documents, though accepted as evidence of transactions recorded in such documents, the court is not bound to act upon the contents of those documents unless persons connected with such documents give evidence in court as regards them and such evidence is accepted by the Court as true. But, when the LAO or the Collector has made his award, based on the contents of documents, as found in the registers kept under the Registration Act and produces registration copies of such documents in support of his award in Court, they could be regarded acceptable as evidence by Court given in support of the award unless it is shown by contra-evidence on behalf of the claimants that such documents could not have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in making the award. It would be so for the reason that when the LAO produces in court Registration (certified) copies of those documents which he had made the basis for determining the market value, that would be only to support his award and not to establish something independent of the award. If that be so, when such documents are produced on behalf of the LAO in court, they cannot be rejected on the ground that the wit- nesses associated with those documents cannot be examined by the LAO, inasmuch , even without producing such documents he can rely upon the award made by him to show that he had looked into those documents and he had determined the market value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that witnesses associated with such certified copies of documents produced as evidence in court were not examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way affect the award of the LAO, if he has determined the market value of the acquired land having perused those documents as found in the Registers kept under the Registration Act or their certified copies, before determining the market value of those lands on the basis of such documents.” 17. Under the circumstances, reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (supra) to contend that the market value indicated in the sale deeds ought to have been accepted, is misplaced and would not be of any help. There is no quarrel to the proposition that mere production of the sale deeds on the record and exhibiting the same, would not establish the element of free sale which otherwise, is important to determine the correct market value mutually arrived at between the parties. As, in the absence of any evidence of sale instances, the learned Judge, has rightly adopted the Yield Method. In a similar set of facts in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, in paragraphs 21, 22, 31, 35 and 36 has observed thus: “21. Thus, two sets of awards are placed on record one for agricultural lands and one for lands situated in Siddhpur city itself for widening the road. On behalf of the appellat-I.O.C. it was submitted that the lands are agricultural and therefore considering the yield, price is required to be determined. 22. Sec. 23 of the Act is the relevant provision for determining the amount of compensation. Section mandates to take into consideration the aspects mentioned therein. Section points out that for determining the market value of the land, the date of publication of the notification under sec. 4 sub-sec 1 is relevant date. It also provides for the damage if any sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector's taking possession of land by reason of taking away standing crops and trees as the land, severing such land from his other land, injunction effect of the acquisition on other movable or immovable properties, or earning and the damages if any, bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Sec. 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. It further provides that if in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses if any incidental to such change are to be considered. It further provides that if in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses if any incidental to such change are to be considered. We are not required to consider as to in addition to market value of the land, what is required to be given as it is already indicated in the award and there is no grievance about that. Under the circumstances, the court will require to bear in mind the aforesaid aspects. 31. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, we are of the view that for determining the market price of the agricultural lands, the court is required to consider the use of land, restriction imposed by other provisions to put it to a different use and the development that has already taken place at the time when the notification was issued. The development, if it was at the relevant time in progress, was required to be considered. But in absence of any evidence pointing out development nearby the lands at the relevant time, the court will have to determine the market price of agricultural lands on the yield basis. The reference court has awarded compensation @ Rs.70/- per sq.mtr. and Rs.65/- per sq.mtr. In our view, even considering the yield and the likely development, the price is determined, it cannot be at the rate at which the price is determined by the Reference Court. Following aspects were required to be taken into consideration : 1) The lands were outside the limits of Siddhpur Municipality and at a distance of 2 km. on the national highway. Some parcels were near the railway track. 2) The lands were used as agricultural lands. 3) In view of the provisions contained in the Tenancy Act, the use was restricted. 4) There is no evidence of any development near about the lands acquired. Witness, Natwarlal, was examined by the claimants to indicate higher price and to prove document executed in 1993. From his evidence, it is clear that even in 1993 there was no development. 5) The awards relied upon cannot be taken into consideration as the lands in those awards were acquired much before and situated within the limits of Siddhpur for widening the road. From his evidence, it is clear that even in 1993 there was no development. 5) The awards relied upon cannot be taken into consideration as the lands in those awards were acquired much before and situated within the limits of Siddhpur for widening the road. There is no evidence indicating any development whatsoever adjoining to the lands in question which were acquired or within the vicinity of 2 km. Even within the Siddhpur limit, there is nothing to indicate that there was development near the city limits. The evidence of the claimant reveals that the claimants were getting net profit of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 35. In the instant case, there is evidence for the purpose of development outside Siddhpur limits. G.I.D.C. has acquired vast area for industrial development. Therefore, in our view, considering the yield and likely development, the amount is required to be determined. Considering the evidence, the claimants stated that they used to earn Rs.10,000/per year but in view of vague statement it would be difficult to put absolute reliance on the income aspect but at the same time it is required to be borne in mind that the State Government has not produced any evidence. The witness Tulsibhai in his evidence has not given any indication about the amount required to be spent for the purpose of cultivation etc. The Apex Court has pointed out in STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS V/S RAMA RANA & OTHERS REPORTED IN 1997(3)G.L.R. 1954 that: "The Reference court also found that the witnesses exaggerated the yield. On that basis, it determined the market value after deducting 1/3rd towards prices @ Rs.325 per Acre. It would be common knowledge that expenditure would be involved in raising and harvesting the crops and that, therefore, on an average 50% of the value of the crop realised would go toward cultivation expenses. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not correct in determining the compensation of the lands on the basis of the yield." The Apex Court further pointed out that: "normally, they should have produced the statistics from the Agricultural Department as to the nature of the crops and the prices prevailing at that time. But unfortunately, neither claimants nor the Government took any steps to adduce the best evidence. It is a fact that the Government has failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf. But unfortunately, neither claimants nor the Government took any steps to adduce the best evidence. It is a fact that the Government has failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf. However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of the witnesses on that ground alone. The court has statutory duty to the society to subject the oral evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of normal prudent man, i.e., whether he would be willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed by the Court. On the touch-stone of this, the Court should evaluate the evidence objectively and dispassionately and reach a finding on compensation." 36. Thus, in absence of any evidence, the court pointed out that 50% of the amount is required to be deducted towards the expenditure and multiplier of 10 is required to be given. Reading the said principle, even if we read the evidence suggesting that the claimant was earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- net per year, it is difficult to place reliance on that figure as no reliable evidence is produced and evidence is vague. The witness has not given the details about the market price with respect to the crops indicated in his evidence or price offered by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee in this behalf. The claimants could have produced evidence in this behalf by examining a person from the Agriculture Produce Market Committee established under the Agriculture Produce Market Act. The witness has not stated about the seeds, labour charges, electricity charges or anything and thus, vague evidence is given and in view of this, we would be justified in deducting 50% from the sum of Rs.10,000/-. The net income would be Rs.5,000/- per bigha. Considering the fact that one bigha is equal to 1600 sq.mtr., as stated by the learned A.G.P., net profit per sq.mtr. would be Rs.3.125ps. To which multiplier of 10 is required to be applied and the price would be Rs.31.25ps. These claimants would be getting on the basis of yield.” 18. It is equally well settled that it would not be possible to determine the compensation with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work which would be inevitable. These claimants would be getting on the basis of yield.” 18. It is equally well settled that it would not be possible to determine the compensation with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guess work which would be inevitable. One also needs to keep in mind that when the matter relates to compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, then in that case the view advancing the cause of justice needs to be taken into account rather than the view which may put the land losers in a vulnerable position. 19. Therefore, the learned Judge, in the considered opinion of this Court, has rightly adopted the Yield Method applying the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram (supra) and no error can be said to have been committed in awarding the additional amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any error committed or illegality or perversity pointed out, the appeals do not warrant interference and are hereby dismissed. 20. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the Court concerned. No order as to costs.