2.1 The documents filed on. benalf of the appellants 8to justify their claimat Rs. 1,00,000/-per acre, werenot accepted by the High Court as the said lands covered by the sale deeds were lands which were situated at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from the acquired lands. There is no definite evidence to indicate the nature and quality of the said land, and hence, there is nothing on C record to show their comparability with the acquired lands. The High Court rightly kept the said sale deeds out of its consideration for lands situated about 2 to 3 kilometers away, which could not be said to be comparable lands with that of the acquired lands. There D was no other direct documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act as a guide in determining the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the High Court fell back upon the capitalisation method of valuation for the acquired lands and in that process it E relied upon the extract of the Fully Revised Estimate of Area, Production and Average yield of Commercial Crops in Karnataka for 1995-96 published by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics which was the safe guide to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the F basis of capitalisation method. The High Court considered the said document and found that during 1995-96, the relevant year in which the notification for acquisition of the land in the instant case was issued, the average yield of sugarcane per hectare was 90 tonnes for the State of G Karnataka and the average yield per hectare for Bijapur District was 106 tonnes and, therefore, according to the Division Bench average .yield per acre was 36.422 tonnes [rounded off to 36 tonnes] for Karnataka and 42.89 tonnes for Bijapur District. The price of jaggery at the relevant
