Can compensation for taken land not include the value of the land and the capitalized profit from it?

I have no quarrel with the proposition that compensation for taken land would not include both the value of the land and the capitalized profit from it, but where valuation is at best arbitrary, and at worst impossible, other means of determining the loss to the owner may be employed under the Surface Rights Act. That very point is made in Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil and Gas Ltd. 1976 CanLII 162 (SCC), [1976] 4 W.W.R. 79 (S.C.C.) at 91, when Martland J. says, in agreement with Maguire J.A., that where the farmer is deprived of the use of a portion of his farm "compensation in respect of land value alone could be inadequate."