( 1 ) THESE are three connected appeals by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, dayanagere and they are directed against the common judgment of the dist. Court, Chitradurga in MAs. 1, 2 and 3 of 1973 confirming the award dt. 28-10-1972 made In LAs. 255, 256 and 257 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judga, Chitradurga. ( 2 ) AGRICULTURAL lands belonging to the claimants who are the respondents in these appeals were acquired far a public purpose pursuant to the preliminary notification published in the Mysore Gazette dt. 15-4-1971. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants put forward their claims for compensation at Rs. 3,000 an acre. The LAO in his award made under s. 11 of the Act fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,425 an acre. On reference made to the Court of the Civil Judge under S. 18 of the Act, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,000 an acre which was affirmed by the Dist. Judge on appeal. Hence these second appeals. ( 3 ) THE market value of the agricultural lands acquired in the instant caes has been determined by adopting the capitalisation of income method- the LAO computed the vield at three pallas of ragi an acre. Valuing the commodity at Rs. 65 a palla he deducted Rs. 100 an acre for the cost of cultivation. The net income derived was multiplied by 15 and the market value was determined at Rs. 1,425 an acre. ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge accepted the basis of the LAO viz. , the, average yield of ragi as well as the price of ragi. However, ha made an allowance of 25 per cent of the grogs yield towards the cost of cultivation and instead of the multiple of 15 he employed the multiple of 20 and thus arrived at rs. 3,000 an acre as market value. ( 5 ) IN the appeal, the learned Dist. Judge was of the view that the calculation made by the learned Civil Judge was wrong. However, he affirmed the quantum of compensation by fixing the average yield as five to six pallas of ragi per acre. For that purpose, the learned Dist. 3,000 an acre as market value. ( 5 ) IN the appeal, the learned Dist. Judge was of the view that the calculation made by the learned Civil Judge was wrong. However, he affirmed the quantum of compensation by fixing the average yield as five to six pallas of ragi per acre. For that purpose, the learned Dist. Judge relied on the award of the LAO made under S. 11, wherein it is stated that the lands are of good quality where ]owar, ragi and ground-nuts were grown and the average yield of the principal crops of the land is said to range from five to six pallas per acre in the village in question. ( 6 ) IN these appeals, the learned High Court Govt. Advocate submitted that the. award of compensation is excessive and the Courts below have altogether ignored from consideration the Pahanis produced by the claimants themselves and that the said Pahanis shew that the yield was only 2 quintals of ragi an acre. It cannot be said that the grievance made out by the learned High Court Govt. Pleader is without substance. When the claimants themselves had produced the Pahanis and relied on the same, the Courts below ought not to have altogether ignored the evidence furnished by the said Pahanis and relied on the hearsay statement contained in the award The LAO has in his award stated that the villagers on enquiry haye told him that the yield is five to six pallas of ragi. That will not be substantive evidence. I have perused the award made by the LAO It is wholly unsatisfactory. The LAO is exercising a statutory duty under the act. It is his duty to hold a careful enquiry and determine the market value on the basis of well recognised principles. He has to enquire about transactions of sale of similar lands and if such evidence is not available, then fallow the second alternative method of computation of market value by adoption of the capitalisation of the net income method. What is average gross yield from the agricultural lands and what is the cost of cultivation and what is the average price of the agricultural commodity grown on the land are all matters which require careful investigation and they should enter into the determination of the market value in the award under s. 11. What is average gross yield from the agricultural lands and what is the cost of cultivation and what is the average price of the agricultural commodity grown on the land are all matters which require careful investigation and they should enter into the determination of the market value in the award under s. 11. It is not sufficient if the LAO simply states that according to the villagers the yield is so much. In my opinion the LAO has altogether failed to perform his statutory duty and passed what he calls an award. He has not even stepped into the witness box to support his award. It may be that the compensation awarded by the Courts below having regard to the fact that these lands are in the dry Dist. of Chitradurga is a little excessive. The claimants have claimed Rs. 3,000 an acre. Generally claimants lay a higher claim than the prevailing market value. The learned High Court govt, Advocate, submitted that I may set aside the judgment of the Courts below and remand the matter. I do not think that I should come to the rescue of the LAO who has failed to perform his statutory duty and has further failed to examine himself in support of his award. I do not consider that the compensation awarded is sq excessive or unreasonable as to call for interference in second appeal by this Court. Hence these appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .