Judgment :- 1. All these are appeals by the State of Kerala against decisions of the Sub Judge's Court, Ernakulam in 6 Land Acquisition reference cases. The reference court has enhanced the amount of compensation payable in respect of lands acquired. Such enhancements by the court below are challenged in all these appeals. 2. Before proceeding to state the facts of each of these pases we may summarise the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State in these appeals by way of objection to the enhancement of land value. There are mainly six points raised by the learned Government Pleader. Our answers to these six points must answer the various questions raised and therefore we propose to refer to the facts of each one of the cases after we answer the six, points. 3. The points that arise are: (1) was the Court below right in determining the market value on the basis of adding to the market value of the basic land based on its extent the capitalised value of trees standing on such land? (2) Even adopting the method of capitalisation in determining the market value of the land was the court below right in adopting 20 years income for capitalisation to determine market value. (3) When the Land Acquisition Officer himself has adopted the method of valuing the land on the basis of its extent and adding to it the capitalised value of the trees could the State object to enhancement based on the same method. (4) The income from trees like jack trees and mango trees and the income from lemon grass oil has been taken into account in determining the capitalised value for the purpose of determining the land value. Is that proper? (5) In A.S.199 of 1974 the capitalised value of the land has been determined on the basis of income from the trees inclusive of rubber trees. There was no method adopted to determine the income from the trees in that land Such income has been determined on the basis of a commissioner's report in another case and that commissioner's report itself is not based upon any test tapping or other method. Should the commission report be acted upon for assessing the income from rubber trees? There was no method adopted to determine the income from the trees in that land Such income has been determined on the basis of a commissioner's report in another case and that commissioner's report itself is not based upon any test tapping or other method. Should the commission report be acted upon for assessing the income from rubber trees? (6) In A. S.47 of 1974, 225 of 1974 and 33 of 1974 value of each of the rubber trees is estimated at Rs.100/- and that is based on the judgment in L.A.R 616 of 1967. Should that judgment be adopted as basis for determination of the income and value of rubber trees in the acquired land? 4. Now the answers. It is well settled that the land may be valued on the basis of evidence of value of similar lands situate in the locality which would give an idea of the market value of the land acquired on the basis of the income from the acquired land by adopting the method of capitalising such income. While evidence as to value of land similarly situate in the locality would be useful in determining the market value of the land where such evidence is not available and evidence of income of such land is available to the court the capitalised value based on such income may be taken as market value. In fact it need not necessarily be that in the absence of evidence as to value of similar land alone a court could determine market value on the basis of capitalisation of income. Whatever be the method adopted it is intended to find out what a willing purchaser would be prepared to pay as value of that land But when once capitalised value of the income is adopted as the basis for determining land value there is no scope for awarding any additional value for the land separately. That is because in determining the market value on the basis of income what the court really does is to find out what any person would be willing to pay for a property such as the one acquired if it would yield the income that is determined by the court as that from the property acquired. We need only refer to the decision in State v. Mariamma (AIR. We need only refer to the decision in State v. Mariamma (AIR. 1969 Kerala 265) cited with approval in the decision in State of Kerala v. Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd., Palai, ILR. 1973 (2) Kerala 1. 5. It has been held by this Court in a number of cases that the multiple that can be adopted for the purpose of capitalising the income in acquisitions for the period with which we are concerned in these cases would be 16 or less 20 would be excessive. We are concerned in these. cases with a notification dated 16 31965 We may refer in this context to the decisions in Parukutty & others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Kozhikode, 1973 KLT. 573 and State of Kerala v. Madhu Alias Madhavi Amma, 1974 KLT. 143. On the facts of the cases before us 16 years' income could be adopted. 6. Now we come to the third point. In these cases the Land Acquisition Officer, in determining the market value of the lands acquired, has taken into account land value and also the capitalised value of the trees standing on the property besides the value of non-yielding trees. The reference court has enhanced land value. It has also enhanced capitalised value based upon the income from the land acquired. According to learned Government Pleader this ought not to have been done. This plea is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these cases on the basis that since this is the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer himself there is no question of going back on this method and the State can have no complaint in regard to the adoption of this method in determining the land value. Hence it is said that on the ground that the capitalised value as well as land value have been independently considered and both added together by the court for determining market value there can be no interference. There is no objection by the State to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation. Hence it is said that on the ground that the capitalised value as well as land value have been independently considered and both added together by the court for determining market value there can be no interference. There is no objection by the State to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation. It is the enhancement that is objected to and therefore according to Government Pleader though the State would not be competent to challenge the propriety of the award, if there is a plea for enhancement of the total amount of compensation before the reference court the fact that State has adopted the method of valuing the land and awarding the capitalised value based on income in addition should not stand in the way of contending that no further enhancement should be made. This question was raised in this Court in the case before the Division Bench to which we have adverted to, that in State of Kerala v. Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd , Palai, ILR. 1973 (2) Kerala 1. Referring to this question the Division Bench said thus in Para.12 and 13: "12. But it was contended for the claimant that the award itself gave the claimant the land value and super-added to it the value of the rubber trees capitalised on the basis of income, both on a lower scale than was adopted by the Court. The Government itself having adopted this principle of valuation in the award, was precluded so the argument proceeded from contending for a different principle of valuation. It was pointed out that no ground had been raised even in the memorandum of appeal to this court that the principle of valuation adopted was wrong. It is enough to record that we had to point out to Counsel for the claimant that while the memorandum of appeal was as bad as it possibly could be, be need not attempt the unprofitable, if not impossible, task of making it appear worse. But as a question of the basic principle of valuation is involved, we are not disposed to preclude arguments on the technical ground that the memorandum of appeal is not sufficiently voluble. But as a question of the basic principle of valuation is involved, we are not disposed to preclude arguments on the technical ground that the memorandum of appeal is not sufficiently voluble. And the contention of the learned Advocate-General was that while he could not possibly attack the amount of compensation adjudged by the award although based on a wrong principle, he was entitled to resist the claim for enhancement of compensation on the continued application of the same wrong principle, especially in a case where the enhancement had been ordered, in all to an extent of over two lakhs of rupees. Before leaving this aspect we would add, that if the income from rubber trees were relevant, the best evidence would have been the claimant's accounts. These were not, produced; and we are not prepared to underscore the omission, as the Trial Court was rather glibly inclined to do, in Para.63, by accepting what it characterised as the "frank" statement of the claimant's Counsel that as the estate was likely to be assessed to excise duty on production, the accounts are not likely to show the correct figures for production. 13. We do not think there is any force in the claimant's objection that having adopted a certain principle of valuation in the award, the State has precluded itself from contending for a different principle at the stage of reference or in an appeal from the judgment of reference. While the award may well be regarded as an offer of a fair price to the claimant by the State, there is neither reason nor equity in holding the State bound even by the principles underlying the price offered, when the claimant himself had rejected the offer by soliciting a reference to the Court. The matter appears stronger from the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. S.12 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act makes the award final and conclusive only in regard to "the true area and value of the land and the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested." Even this finality and conclusiveness are, by the very terms of the section, only "except as hereinafter provided". The provisions that follow may be noticed. S.18 provides for a reference to the Court. S.20 provides for a determination by the Court of the objections to the award. The provisions that follow may be noticed. S.18 provides for a reference to the Court. S.20 provides for a determination by the Court of the objections to the award. S.21 defines the scope of the enquiry by the Court, which shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objections. S.22 enumerates positively the considerations which the court may take into account in determining the amount of compensation; and S.23 defines negatively the considerations which it shall not take into account. There is no provision which forbids the Court, in a reference, from considering a principle of valuation at variance with what was adopted by the award, even where an award is passed on a.,wrong principle of valuation. We should indeed be surprised to find any. On making the reference to the Court, the question of the proper value of land to be awarded to the claimant is at large, and has to be decided by the Court within the scope of the enquiry fixed by S.21, and subject to the considerations and injunctions listed in S.22 and 23. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the State is precluded from questioning the basis or the principles of valuation adopted by the award." The question of adequacy of the compensation has to be determined by the reference court. In determining such adequacy the court is not entitled to reduce what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. ' There is no principle or rule which precludes the court from considering the proper principle of valuation to be adopted in any case and determining the value on that basis. If any enhancement is found due on that basis the claimant is . entitled to it and if adopting such principle the value determined falls short of what has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer that will not affect the claimant in any manner. Therefore in reference proceedings enhancement, if any, has to be made on the proper principle to be adopted in such a case If under law in determining market value there cannot be an award of land value separately when once value has been determined on the basis of capitalisation of income, nothing precludes the reference court from applying the proper rule for determining market value. 7. 7. In one of the cases A. S.199 of 1974 reliance is placed upon a commissioner's report for the purpose of determining the income from the trees in the land acquired in that case. We may mention here that there are 3 other appeals A. S.33, 225 and 47 of 1974 to which we will presently refer where the only income is from rubber trees and in all the said 3 cases there is no commissioner's report available for determining the income. We, in dealing with the propriety of the mode adopted for determining the income from the rubber trees, will refer to the cases in due course. In the other 3 cases only in one there are rubber trees and that is in A. S.199 of 1974. The income from rubber trees in that case was not determined on the basis of any commissioner's report available in that case. But the commissioner's report in a suit O. S.61 of 1968 was made use of for that purpose. Ext. P5 is the copy of the commissioner's report and pw. 6 is the commissioner in O. S.61 of 1968. That was a suit filed by the claimants soon after the award evidently with a view to obtain evidence of the value of trees in the acquired land before the trees were felled by the State. The Commissioner's report so obtained in the suit was filed in the reference case. L. A. 436 of 1968 from which A. S.199 of 1974 has arisen and the commissioner was examined. In view of the examination of the commissioner who had prepared Ext. P5 report it is open to us to act upon the report as evidence and therefore it has, evidentiary value even if it is not a report by a commissioner appointed in the case. But that by itself may not be of any assistance to the claimants in the cases because the report really affords no basis for determining the income from the rubber trees. We have come across cases where courts are called upon to determine the income from rubber trees standing in acquired lands. The usual method adopted in those cases is to conduct test tapping of the trees The yield obtained on such test tapping would be the basis for determining the annual income from the property. There are many factors to be taken note of. The usual method adopted in those cases is to conduct test tapping of the trees The yield obtained on such test tapping would be the basis for determining the annual income from the property. There are many factors to be taken note of. The yield determined by test tapping is one of the several factors. The season during which test tapping is done, the conditions under which such tapping is done, whether test tapping was done on the previous day also are some of the matters which are relevant in matters of the final result It is well known that trees tapped once in two days yield more than those tapped ever day. The yield of the trees would depend further upon very many factors such as the nature of the rubber trees, their age, attention given to them, the season and the like. Therefore even when results of test tapping are available to a court considerable care has to be taken in making use of the data obtained by such test tapping to determine the annual income. When there is no test tapping conducted by the commissioner but he merely observes on an inspection of the trees that the estimated income is 500 Kgs. from 182 trees as observed in Ext. P5 that cannot be of much assistance. H is well settled that what the commissioner is expected to do is only to collect the data and not to decide the dispute. The decision must be left to the court. The commissioner has only to place materials collected by him before the court so as to enable the court to take a decision on such materials. When the commissioner finds in the report without any data that the yield from 182 trees is 500 Kgs. of rubber that is deciding the matter himself without leaving to the court room for independent decision in the matter. Hence Ext. P5 in A.S. 199 of 1974 is of no use in determining the income from the rubber trees from the acquired land. On that there is no evidence before us except perhaps the oral evidence of the claimant himself. To this we will refer when we come to that question. 8. Normally the income from trees which are yielding are taken into account for the purpose of capitalising the total income from the property to determine its market value. On that there is no evidence before us except perhaps the oral evidence of the claimant himself. To this we will refer when we come to that question. 8. Normally the income from trees which are yielding are taken into account for the purpose of capitalising the total income from the property to determine its market value. If there are trees which are not yielding income value of such trees is to be estimated and that is added on to the total value to determine the market value. There may be trees which may be used only as timber or firewood and their value as timber or firewood would also be added on to the capitalised value of the income to determine the market value. According to learned Government Pleader in determining the capitalised value the income from jack trees, mango trees and the like and also the income from lemon grass oil should not have been taken into account at all. These, according to counsel, should be valued on the basis of the timber and that value should be added on to the value arrived at by capitalising the income from the other trees to determine the market value. Of course he has an objection to the determination in the commissioner's report Ext.P5 which report is applicable to A.S. 143, 149 and 199 of 4974. We see no reason why the income from trees such as jack trees and mango trees should not be taken into account in determining the total income of the property. For the purpose of arriving at the market value what is relevant would be the net annual income from the property and such net annual income must necessarily include the income from all the trees which are capable of yielding income. There may be trees which can be valued as timber but which may also yield income. Jack trees, it is well known, yield a good number of jack fruits every year just like coconut trees yielding coconuts. We see no reason why the income arising from jack fruits should not be added on to the total Income. Similar is the case with mango trees. All these have value just as coconuts have. It is true that lemon grass may perish after sometime. We see no reason why the income arising from jack fruits should not be added on to the total Income. Similar is the case with mango trees. All these have value just as coconuts have. It is true that lemon grass may perish after sometime. But necessarily its place will be taken by freshly planted lemon grass and therefore when determining the value of the land the income from the lemon grass will be relevant. May be the nature of the yield may be relevant in determining the multiple which should be applied in determining the capitalised value. But to say that income from lemon grass should not be taken into account cannot be appreciated. Hence we. do not see any reason why we should differ from the view taken by the court below as to the inclusion of the value of trees like jack trees and mango trees and also from lemon grass in determining the total income from the property. 9. In 3 cases A. S.33, 225 and 47 of 1974 the only income is that from rubber trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has determined the capitalised value on the basis of the income from the rubber. This has been enhanced in all the 3 cases not based upon test tapping there are not trees available nor upon any report of the commissioner. It is noticed that in the judgment in L. A. A. 616 of 1967 relating to acquisition of land in the locality rubber tree has been valued at Rs. 100/- and therefore that is adopted as the basis for determining the value of the rubber trees in the lands in three cases. But the land acquisition officer's valuation shows thai in one of the plots acquired there are rubber trees the average value of which comes to Rs. 100/- while in other plots the trees are of lesser value. That is only natural. The value of rubber trees would depend upon several factors such as its age, its character and degree of maintenance and it will be unsafe to adopt the valuation in another case as the basis for valuation unless there is definite evidence to establish that the trees are the same type. That is only natural. The value of rubber trees would depend upon several factors such as its age, its character and degree of maintenance and it will be unsafe to adopt the valuation in another case as the basis for valuation unless there is definite evidence to establish that the trees are the same type. Had there been some evidence to show that the rubber trees in the land which is the subject of L.A.A. 616 of 1967 are the same type and the same value as that of the 3 plots acquired we might have been inclined to accept it. There is no evidence to accept such a case and we cannot assume that the trees are all of the same character particularly when they belong to different owners. There is no case that the trees in the land which is subject matter of L. A A. 616 of 1967 belongs to the claimants in these cases. Hence we see no basis for adopting Rs.100/-for a rubber tree in the three cases. 10. Now we are called upon to apply the above said findings reached by us on the points raised to the cases before us and we shall do so. 11. It is agreed that in A. S: 33 and 47 of 1974 it will certainly be more profitable to the respondents to stand by the Award in the light of our findings mentioned here. It is conceded by counsel for respondents Sri. Kuruvilla that in case land value together with the value of the trees on the basis of the capitalisation are not to be awarded as found by the reference court it will be more advantageous to his clients to accept the amounts found in the awards. That would mean that there will be no enhancement in the two cases. The enhancement awarded by court below will stand vacated in these two cases. 12. In A. S.143 and 225 of 1974 also it is submitted by counsel for the claimants that it will be advantageous to them to opt for the amount found in the awards as due. That, as we have indicated, takes in both land value and capitalised value and the State cannot have objection to the award of that amount. 12. In A. S.143 and 225 of 1974 also it is submitted by counsel for the claimants that it will be advantageous to them to opt for the amount found in the awards as due. That, as we have indicated, takes in both land value and capitalised value and the State cannot have objection to the award of that amount. That means that just as in A. S.33 of 1974 and 47 of 1974 in these appeals also the appeal by the State is to be allowed. There will be no enhancement due to the claimants. The enhancement awarded by the court below will be vacated in these two appeals also. . 13. In A. S.149 of 1974 the claimants choose to take the capitalised value such capitalisation being at 16 times of the annual income. It 1s agreed that so worked out the amount would be Rs. 1,14,924. This would be the amount due as compensation in this case. Besides this solatium at 15 percent and interest at 4 percent on the total amount from 10-9-1968 would be due. Whatever has been found as due under the award will be deducted and the rest will be considered as enhancement to which the claimants are entitled. To the extent the reference court has given further enhancement the appeal stands allowed. 14. In A. S.199 of 1974 the value of rubber trees cannot be determined as we have said on the basis of the commission report in O. S! 61 of 1968 which commission report does not give proper data. The figure adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs. 17,738/-. To this is to be added the value of other trees and structures in the property and together it is agreed that the amount would be Rs. 42,946.03 This is above the figure found by Land Acquisition Officer but below the figure found by the reference court. This will be the amount due as compensation. Solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent from 27-5-1968 will also be due. The amount in excess of what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is the amount due. The appeal is allowed to the extent of reducing the enhancement to that figure. 15. Even the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted a method for determining market value to which the State itself has taken objection. The amount in excess of what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is the amount due. The appeal is allowed to the extent of reducing the enhancement to that figure. 15. Even the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted a method for determining market value to which the State itself has taken objection. In these circumstances we do not think that the appellant must be awarded costs in spite of success. The proper course therefore is to direct parties to suffer costs, in all these appeals. We do so.