GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THE appeals one by the Land Acquisition Officer and the other by the claimant are directed against the award and decree dt. 9th Decr. 1969, made in L. A. Mis. 62 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, hassan. ( 2 ) FIVE seres and 37 guntas of land comprised in S. Nos. 36, 41 and 42 of Hasade village Sakaleshpur Taluk belonging to the claimant, were acquired for the Hassan Mangalore Railway line pursuant to the preliminary notification under S. 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Mysore Gazette dated December 31, 1966. ( 3 ) THE claimant was the owner of a coffee estate of a total extent of about 29 acres. He was a registered owner of the coffee estate as required u/s. 14 of the Coffee Act, 1942. Portions of the said estate were acquired for the Hassan-Bangalore Railway line, and the estate was thereby cut up into two portions as the railway line passed through the estate. The particulars of the land acquired were, 2 acres and 1 gunta in S. No. 36, 2 acres and 27 guntas in S. No. 41, and 1 acre and 9 guntas in S. No. 42. The claimant claimed compensation for the entire extent of land at Rs. 10,000 an acre. In addition, he claimed damages under Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 23 of the Act on the ground of injurious affection as well as damage sustained by him by reason of the severance of the land acquired from the remaining land. The Land Acquisition Officer treating an extent of 2 acres and 1 gunta comprised in S. No. 36 as fallow land valued the same at rs. 800 an acre and awarded compensation accordingly. The rest of the land comprised in S. Nos. 41 and 42 was actually planted with coffee and therefore was valued at Rs. 6000 an acre. The Land Acquisition Officer further awarded a sum of Rs. 500 for fencing and Rs. 1000 for severance. ( 4 ) THE claimant not being satisfied with the said Award, sought reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Act. The learned Civil judge enhanced the compensation in respect of S. No. 36 from Rs. 800 to rs. 4000 an acre and in respect of the lands comprised in S. Nos. 1000 for severance. ( 4 ) THE claimant not being satisfied with the said Award, sought reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Act. The learned Civil judge enhanced the compensation in respect of S. No. 36 from Rs. 800 to rs. 4000 an acre and in respect of the lands comprised in S. Nos. 41 and 42, from Rs. 6000 to Rs. 8000 an acre. He enhanced the compensation under Clauses (iii) and (iv) of S. 23 to which we will refer later. He also awarded a sum of Rs. 500 as compensation for 14 orange plants that stood in the coffee lands acquired, viz. S. Nos. 41 and 42. ( 5 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the said enhancement has preferred MFA. 306 of 1970. The claimant not being satisfied with the award has preferred MFA 399 of 1970, wherein he has claimed further enhancement by a total sum of Rs. 20,000. ( 6 ) THE questions presented for decision in these appeals are : - (1) Whether the land acquired in S. No. 36 was a land planted with coffee (2) Whether the compensation awarded in respect of coffee lands in s. Ncs. 41 and 42 by the learned Civil Judge was justified on the material on record (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation for the 14 orange plants when compensation has been paid for the land on which they stood on the basis of the market value of cqffee lands; and (4) Whether the enhancement of compensation under Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 23 of the Act is justified. We will deal with the points in the above order. ( 7 ) POINT No. 1-The Land Acquisition Officer has treated 2 acres and 1 gunta of land in S. No. 36 as fallow land not planted with coffee. That award was supported by him in the evidence which he gave before the claimant produced in support of his contontion Ext. P3, certified copy ef the Pahani extracts which showed that in 1959-60. S. No36 had been planted with coffe. The shanbhogue who is alleged to have made entries in the Pahanies was not examined. The learned Civil Judge, relying on the Pahani extract viz Ext. P3, certified copy ef the Pahani extracts which showed that in 1959-60. S. No36 had been planted with coffe. The shanbhogue who is alleged to have made entries in the Pahanies was not examined. The learned Civil Judge, relying on the Pahani extract viz Ext. P3, reached the conclusion that the land must have been a coffee plantation though not fully planted, and therefore, he awarded compensation at Rs. 4,000 an acre. The correctness of the said finding has been challenged by the learned Government Advocate. ( 8 ) THERE should have been no difficulty for the claimant to establish that the land acquired in S. No. 36 was in fact planted with coffee. Under s. 14 of the Coffee Act, every owner of land planted with coffee plants, is required to register his estate by applying to the Registering Officer appointed by the State Government. If any fresh land is brought under coffee plantation, such land has to be included in the registration certificate by appropriate amendment. The claimant, when he was cross-examined, has admitted that he has not produced the registratien certificate. He also admitted that only one or two. survey numbers were shown in the registration certificate but not all the lands. He further staged that he planted arabiea Coffee about ten year ago in S. No. 36. He also admitted in the cross examination that he has not produced any document to show that any particular acreage in the coffee estate or in S. No. 36 had been registered under the Coffes Act. It has to be noted that the claimant is not an illiterate and ignorant agriculturist. He was an Advocate practising in the Hassan courts. The best evidence to show that S . No. 36 had been planted with coffee was the certificate of registration granted under S. 14 of the Coffee act which the claimant has deliberately failed to produce. A presumption has to be drawn against the claimant on account of his failure to produce the certificate of registration granted under the Coffee Act, that it does not show that S. No. 36 had been planted with coffee and that he was not a registered grower of coffee in the, said land. Under the Coffee rules 1955, made under the Coffee Act every registered owner ef coffee lands is required to send every year return to the Coffee Beard, in Form F1. Under the Coffee rules 1955, made under the Coffee Act every registered owner ef coffee lands is required to send every year return to the Coffee Beard, in Form F1. The said return has to give, among others, particulars relating to the planted area as on November 1 beaning area as on November- 1 and the additional. land planted with coffee during the twelve' months ending with november 1. If the entire estate of the extent of 38 agres and 1 gunta belonging to the claimant had been planted with coffee there should have been HO difficulty for the claimant to cause the preduction of the returns in Form F1 made by him to the Coffee Board. The said returns would have show the actual extant of land planted with coffee and the area of the coffee bearing lands. Instead of producing the best evidence the claimant has relied on certified cqpies of the Pahanies. The person who has made entries in the Pahanies has net been examined. When ther is an Act of the Central Legislature directly governing the Coffee Industry under which every grower of coffee has to register the land in which he grows coffee and such registration certificate has not been produced no reliance can be placed on the Fahanies which have not been proved by summoning the person who is alleged to have made the entries in the same. The learned civil Judge held local inspection in the presence of the Counsel for the parties and from the notes of inspection, it is seen that there were no stumps of coffee plants er shade trees in S. No. 36 when the local inspce- tion was held. That the learned Civil Judge did not observe any stumps of coffee plants in S. No. 36, clearly goes to establish that the said land was not planned with coffee and that the claimant has made a false claim. In our opinion, the learned Civil Judge was in error in relying on the certified copies of the Pahanies in the absence of the certificate of registration obtained under the Coffee Act. There is no evidence! that 2 acres and 1 gunta acquired out of S. No. 36 was worth more than Rs. 800 an acre a,t the relevant time. In our opinion, the learned Civil Judge was in error in relying on the certified copies of the Pahanies in the absence of the certificate of registration obtained under the Coffee Act. There is no evidence! that 2 acres and 1 gunta acquired out of S. No. 36 was worth more than Rs. 800 an acre a,t the relevant time. We, accordingly, hold that 2 acres and 1 gunta of land in S: No. 36'was/fallow land ana that there was no justification for enhancement of compensation in respect of the same. ( 9 ) POINT No. 2-The land Acquisition Officer as stated earlier, awarded compensation for the coffee lands at Rs. 6,000 an acre. Before the court, the claimant did not produce any evidence of transactions of sale of coffee estate in Hassan District or Chikkamagalur District in Mysore State. He also refrained from adducing documentary evidence concerning the yield of his estate and the profits he was deriving. Instead, he attempted to prove its income by examination of witnesses who gave evidence of a general nature regarding profits from an acre of coffee land. The claimant admitted that he was an assessee to agricultural income tax under the mys. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. Income from coffee lands is liable to tax under the said Act. The assessment orders passed on the claimant for the previous years would have shown the profits the claimant was deriving in the immediate preceding years. The claimant also could have produced evidence of the actual quantity of coffee he was picking from his estate and the amounts paid to him by the Coffee Board in respect of each year's coffee crop. Under the Coffee Act every grower of coffee is required to deliver all his coffee except what is permitted for domestic consumption under the permit issued by the Coffee Board, to the Coffee board. The Coffee Board pays the grower the value of the same. In respect of each season's coffee, the Coffee Board issues, what/is called a valuation report which gives the, particulars of coffee delivered, the dividends declared in respect of the said coffee and the amounts paid by the Coffeeboard. The Coffee Board pays the grower the value of the same. In respect of each season's coffee, the Coffee Board issues, what/is called a valuation report which gives the, particulars of coffee delivered, the dividends declared in respect of the said coffee and the amounts paid by the Coffeeboard. The claimant could have produced the valuation reports furnished to him by the Coffee Board in respect of the preceding years from which it would have been possible to find out as to what was the grogs yield which the claimant was deriving. When the claimant could have produced such evidence which could not have been disputed by anyone, he deliberately refrained from producing the same the obvious inference is that if such documents were produced the same would have gone against his case he produced plain paper copies of the assessment orders passed by the agricultural Income tax Officers, but did not choose to rely on the same er get them marked on the ground that the said assessment orders were under appeal. Even if the assessment orders made by the Agricultural income-tax Officer were under appeal, the claimant could have produced certified copies of the assessment orders which would have shown the particulars of the income returned by him. He produced certain account books which the learned Civil Judge found were not reliable as they looked freshly got up. The claimant also did not rely on the said account books. Instead of producing the best evidence that was available, the claimant examined witnesses who Stated as to what is the normal income from an acre of coffee land. on the basis of such evidence the learned Civil judge came to the conclusion that it would be proper to hold that on an average the annual income would he Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 an acre He then proceeded to determine the. markt value by capitalising the net income at twenty years purchase value. The learned Civil judge had no] material before him for valuation of coffee plantations at twenty years' purchase value. AS laid down by this Court, there is no universal rule that where the capitalisation of income method is followed, the average net annual income has to be multiplied by 20. The multiple to be adopted is a matter entirely resting on evidence as to what return investors in coffee estate expect on their investments. AS laid down by this Court, there is no universal rule that where the capitalisation of income method is followed, the average net annual income has to be multiplied by 20. The multiple to be adopted is a matter entirely resting on evidence as to what return investors in coffee estate expect on their investments. It was noticed by us in Channaveerappa v. Land Acquisition Officer (1973) 2 Mys. L. J. 198 that the return expected in the case of coffee plantations is 15 per cent. If 15 per cent is the return expeceted by investors in coffee plantations the multiple to be adopted for arriving at the market value will be 6 or 7. If the net income as estimated by the learned Civil Judge (at Rs. 500 an acre) is accepted, then the market value of an acre of coffee land could not have exceeded Rs. 3,500 an acre. As already stated, there was no reliable material at all adduced by the claimant to show as to what was the net profit derived by him from his coffee estate. ( 10 ) THERE would have been no difficulty to prove the market value of coffee plantations in Hassan District. Transactions of sale of coffee estates in the Districts of Chikkamagalur, Hassa,n and Cqorg in Mysore state where coffee is grown, are not of a rare occurrence. Evidence of even a single transaction was not given. It is also common knowledge that coffee estates in Sakaleshpur and other Districts of Mysore State have been valued for purposes of estate duty, gift tax and wealth tax. Coffee estates were brqught under Wealth Tax Act for purposes of assessment with effect from 1st April 1969. The Central Government has appointed a number of approved valuers for the purpose of valuation of properties under the various Central Acts. No such valuer was examined by the claimant when he could have examined one. He could have also produced the assessment orders made under the Estate Duty Act or the Gift Tax Act. It is also relevant to state that in the claim statement filed by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer, which is marked as Ext. D2, he stated that the total value of his entire estate was Rs. 2,00,000 and that there, was an offer for purchase at the said value before the acquisition. It is also relevant to state that in the claim statement filed by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer, which is marked as Ext. D2, he stated that the total value of his entire estate was Rs. 2,00,000 and that there, was an offer for purchase at the said value before the acquisition. Even if that value were accepted, and the entire estate of 29 acres and 1 gunta had been planted with coffee, the market value works 'rut at about Rs. 6,809 an acre The claimant could not have claimed more than the said amount. The Land Acquisition Officer without due investigation to ascertain the market value of an acre of coffee plantation or the income the claimant was deriving, virtually accepted the valuation given by the claimant in ext. D2 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 an acre. It is also relevant to note that about 50 per cent of the land of the coffee plantation acquired was planted with Robusta coffee while the remaining land was planted with Arabica coffee. It is in evidence that lands planted with robusta are not as valuable as Arabica coffee. In spite of that differentiation in the valuation, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 6,000 an acre. In our opinion, therefors there was absolutely no justification for the learned Civil Judge to enhance the compensation in respect of coffee lands in S. Nos. 41 and 42. ( 11 ) POINT No. 3-There is evidence that there were 14 orange plants in the coffee plantation (S. Nos. 41 and 42 ). If the claimant had produced his income-tax returns, it would have been possible to find out as to, whe- ther he was deriving any income from the orange plants. As already observed, he has deliberately, failed to. produce the income-tax assessment orders. When the lands have been valued as regular coffee plantations, it is not possible to, award separate compensation if there were stray orange plants or other fruit bearing trees in such coffee plantations. It is not unusual to find orange plants planted here and there in regularly planted coffee plantations. But, when orange plants are planted in coffee plantations, there will be a corresponding decrease in the number of coffee plants as both the qrange plant and the coffee plant will be competing for the same land. It. It is not unusual to find orange plants planted here and there in regularly planted coffee plantations. But, when orange plants are planted in coffee plantations, there will be a corresponding decrease in the number of coffee plants as both the qrange plant and the coffee plant will be competing for the same land. It. is not shown that by the existence of stray orange plants in coffee plantations, the market value of such coffee plantations is enhanced thereby. Therefore there is no justification lor awarding separate compensation in respect of the orange plants. ( 12 ) POINT No. 4-The, finding of learned Civil Judge is that on account of the cutting of the claimant's estate into two portions and the passing ef the railway line through the estate, the claimant has to put up a fresh fence for which he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500. That the claimant has to put up a fresh fence consequent on the acquisition of the land which cuts up the estate into two portions cannot be disputed and has not been disputed before us. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned civil Judge was justified in enhancing the said compensation from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,500 and we see no reason calling for interference with the same. ( 13 ) THE learned Civil Judge has further Come to the conclusion that in the area of the coffee estate abutting the railway line, half an acre of ceffee plantations would be injuriously affacted. That some coffee plants may be injuriausly affected consequent on tke fact that there would be no shade trees to protect the same, cannot be disputed. If the valuation as given by the Land Acquisition officer is accepted, the market value of half an acre of coffee land which is injuriously affected , would be Rs. 3,000. But the claimant will not be entitled to the value of half an acre of land but only for damage for injurious affeption. The said damages, in our opinion can be estimated at 50 per cant of the value of the land, viz. , rs. 1,500. 'accordingly, "we reduce the sum of Rs. 3,500 awarded by the leamed Civil Judge to Rs. 1,500. ( 14 ) BY the act of acquisition, the estate of the claimant has been cut up into two. portions one block o,. , rs. 1,500. 'accordingly, "we reduce the sum of Rs. 3,500 awarded by the leamed Civil Judge to Rs. 1,500. ( 14 ) BY the act of acquisition, the estate of the claimant has been cut up into two. portions one block o,. f 4 acres and 20 guntas on one side of the railway line, and the major, Meek of 18 aeres and 27 guntas on the oppesite side ef the railway line. The finding of the learned Civil Judge is that in order to approach the smaller block of 4 aerss and 26 guntas the claimant has to take a circuitous route of about 2 to 3 furlongs on account of the railway line. It cannot be disputed that when a small portion of a coffee estate has been severed from the main block, the small block will get depreciated in, value. If both the blocks are large enough for economic management, there would be no depreciation. The learned Civil Judge has held that the smaller portion of 4 acres and 26 guntas has depreciated in value by about Rs. 1,000 an acre. on the basis of the evidence, We have no reason to come to a different conclusion as to the depreciation in value. However the learned Civil Judge was not right in holding that the entire 4 acres and 20 guntas is planted area, A Commissioner was appointed -in the case and his report is Ext. P2 which states that out of the total extent of 4 acres and 20 guntas, one and a half acres were not planted with coffee and was fallow That was also the evidence of the Commissioner. If an extent of 11/2 acres was fallow that land would not suffer any depreciation in value. Therefore depreciation in value must be restricted to the remaining 3 acres of land. Accordingly, we reduce the compensation under this head from Rs. 4,689 to, Rs. 3,000. ( 15 ) IN the result, MFA. 366 of 1979 is allowed in part, and the award of the Court below is modified thus : compensation in respect of 2 acres and 1 gunta of land in S. No. 36 is reduced to Rs. 800 an acre; (2) Compensation in respect of 3 acres and 36 guntas of coffee land in S. Nos. 41 and 42 is reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 800 an acre; (2) Compensation in respect of 3 acres and 36 guntas of coffee land in S. Nos. 41 and 42 is reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 6,000 an acre; (3) Compensation awarded in respect of the orange plants is deleted; (4) Compensation under Glauses (iii) and (iv) of S. 23 is reduced from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 6,000. The appellant is entitled to proportionate costs. The appeal of the claimant-MFA. 399 of 1970 is dismissed, but without costs. --- *** --- .