Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises from land acquisition O. P. No. 328 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode and the appellants seek enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned Subordinate Judge. The State acquired 51 cents of land with a building thereon in Kozhikode town for the purpose of E. S.1. Dispensary. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the capitalisation method and awarded compensation at 18 times the annual rental value. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation by awarding 25 times the annual net rent. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before us is that the property is situate in an important locality in Calicut near the Railway station, various educational institutions and industrial houses and that capitalisation of 33-1/3 times as claimed by the appellants should have been allowed by the lower court. Counsel for this purpose relied on the decision of the Supreme Court instate of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya AIR. 1968 S.C.1201. The answer of the counsel for the State is that the learned Subordinate Judge had found on the basis of Ext. A-1 Government of India bond issued in April 1964 that the interest for gilt-edged securities issued by the Reserve Bank of India in April 1964 was 4% and that it was for that reason that the lower Court had fixed the multiple at 25 times. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya AIR. 1968 SC. 1201 had occassion to consider whether the return from gilt-edged securities should be the sole criterion in fixing the multiple. It observed as follows: "It cannot be laid down as a general rule applicable to all situations and circumstances that a multiple, approximately equal to the return from gilt-edged securities prevailing at the relevant time forms an adequate basis for finding out the market value of the land." It follows that other factors have also to be taken into consideration in fixing what should be the multiple in fixing the value of compensation. In this case, it being admitted that the property is situated at an important locality in Calicut town, we are of the opinion that 30 times the annual net rental will be the proper compensation to be allowed. In this case, it being admitted that the property is situated at an important locality in Calicut town, we are of the opinion that 30 times the annual net rental will be the proper compensation to be allowed. Accordingly, we modify the award of the learned Subordinate Judge by fixing the compensation at 30 times the annual net rental value. The appellants will also be entitled to 15% solatium on the amount as also interest at 4% from the date of dispossession. The parties will be entitled to their costs in proportion to their success. A. N. K.