GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ,, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ports, Mangalore, against the award and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge, mangalore in C. P. No. 1134 of 1965. Pursuant to a Notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 27-7-1963, three items of lands of Panambur village, Mangalore Taluk belonging to the respondent-claimant were acquired for the Panambur Harbour Project. The three lands are:- ( (1) S. No. 218/l, dry, 4 cents, (2) S. No. 218 2, wet II, 33 cents, and (S) S. No. 218/3, wet III, 34 cents. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 3,000 in respect of the first item; at the rate of Rs. 2,700 for the second item; and at the rate of Rs. 2,400 an acre in respect of the third item. On a reference to the Court under S. 18 of the Act, the Court beiow awarded compensation in respect of items 1 and 3 at Rs. 27,700 on the finding that on the said lands the claimant was growing sugarcane. In respect of item 2 the lower Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,500 an acre. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the above appeal. ( 2 ) AT the very outset, Sri Sabarad, learned High Court Government pleader appearing for the appellant submitted 'that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,500 an acre in respect of item 2 is fair and the said valuation has been accepted by this Court in MFA. 48 of 1970 and therefore he submitted that the appeal to that extent is not pressed. ( 3 ) IN respect of items 1 and 3, the finding of the Court below on the basis of the evidence on record is that in the said lands sugarcane is grown. That finding cannot be said to be erroneous on the material on record. The question is as to what is the market value of an acre of land in panambur village which is capable of growing sugarcane. ( 4 ) THE respondent-claimant in his evidence stated that the yield of sugarcane from his lands was at the rate of 16 candies of jaggery and that the price of jaggery, at the time of the relevant notification was Rs. ( 4 ) THE respondent-claimant in his evidence stated that the yield of sugarcane from his lands was at the rate of 16 candies of jaggery and that the price of jaggery, at the time of the relevant notification was Rs. 14 per 10 Kgms. and on that basis he was realising a net profit of Rs. 3,500 an acre at the time of the acquisition. He also stated that the cultivation expenses for raising 16 candies of jaggery in an acre wag six candies of jaggery. The lower Court has not accepted that part of the evidence of the claimant with regard to either the yield or expenses. What the lower court has don* is to rely on some report of the District Agricultural officer, Mangalore, whch has not been marked as evidence in the case nor was the said District Agricultural Officer examined. The learned Counsel for both the parties are unable to state as to how the said material came to be introduced in the judgment. If the District Agricultural Officer had not been examined and his report has not been marked as evidence, the lower Court ought not to have relied on such hearsay evidence. It appears to us that the evidence of the claimant that the cultivation expenses in respect of sugarcane is six candies of jaggery is patently false. The proper mode of determination of the market value of the land is to adduce evidence of contemporaneous transactions of similar lands and also to lead evidence as to the net yield after meeting cultivation expenses and adopt a proper multiple for capitalising the value. What multiple should be adopted is a matter which depends on the nature of the crop that is raised. It cannot be said uniformly that in all eases the adoption of the multiple of 20 can be justified in the case of agricultural lands. It depends upon what an investor would expect as a return on his investment. It must also be noted that sugarcane crop cannot be grown every year on the same land and the duration of the crop also is more than one year. In that view, the lower Court was wholly in error in fixing the market value of items 1 and 3 at Rs. 27,700. It must also be noted that sugarcane crop cannot be grown every year on the same land and the duration of the crop also is more than one year. In that view, the lower Court was wholly in error in fixing the market value of items 1 and 3 at Rs. 27,700. On the material on record, it is not possible for this Court to determine the value of the said two lands. Therefore', we allow the appeal in part with respect to items 1 and 3 and remand the matter to the Court below to hold a fresh enquiry after allowing the parties to lead evidence, in the light of this judgment. The award of the court below in respect of item 2 will stand. Ordered accordingly. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, parties will bear their own costs in this court. --- *** --- .