CHANDREKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State by its assistant Engineer, Gadag, Sub-Division, gadag and the Executive Engineer, Minor R. 18 irrigation, Dharwar. ( 2 ) CERTAIN land belonging to the respondents was notified for acquisition. The extent of the land was seven acres. It was agricultural land situated in Shingata rayankere village, Mundargi Taluk, Dharwad district. The preliminary notification dated 15-10-1981 was issued for acquisition of the said land for purposes of construction of an irrigation tank at the village. The land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 800/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents sought a refirence under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act (the Act for short), in reference case No. LAC. No. 174 of 1989, the learned Civil Judge, Gadag, awarded Rs. 7,500/- together with solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the enhancement made by the Civil Court, this appeal is preferred inter alia on the ground that the learned Judge, in the absence of the average yield certificate, erred in accepting the version putforward by the claimants despite holding that their evidence was not credible. ( 4 ) OUR attention was specifically drawn by the learned Government advocate to the passage in which the learned Judge held as follows :"unless the average yield data is produced, it is not possible to safely adopt the average yield spoken by the claimants, because the claimant being the interested witness himself, is likely to exaggerate the annual yield. "in deed, that observation has been made by the learned Judge taking precaution to reduce such claims by 50% on account of want of yield certificate. In other words, he has accepted the version putforward by the claimants only to the extent of 50% assuming that it was only half the truth and no more. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the R. T. C. extracts produced, he has capitalised the income derived from the types of crops grown. It was in evidence of the claimants that they had grown three crops during mungaru (khariff) and two crops during hingaru (rabi ). It was contended that they grow groundnut, yellu (Til) and hybrid jowar in the khariff season and in rabi season they grew cotton and wheat. It was in evidence of the claimants that they had grown three crops during mungaru (khariff) and two crops during hingaru (rabi ). It was contended that they grow groundnut, yellu (Til) and hybrid jowar in the khariff season and in rabi season they grew cotton and wheat. He has worked out the yield per acre as stated by the claimants in respect of each of the crops and divided the same in respect of the khariff crops by three and in respect of rabi crops by two to arrive at the gross income claimed by the claimants. Thereafter words, he has allowed deduction of 50% towards cost of cultivation. He has further deducted another 50 % of the average annual yield per acre having regard to the reservation he had about the truthfulness of the claim. In order to apply the multiplier method, as we see from paragraph-12, the learned Judge has given his own reasons and having regard to the expert Land Valuer examined by the claimants and his version that the lands were valuable at Rs. 26. 000/- per acre, and taking the overall picture, he fixed the market value at Rs. 7,500/- per acre. If he had used the multiplier method, the claimants would have a maximum multiplier of 10. Then the market value would have been at Rs. 10,000.- per acre. Unfortunately, due to the lapse on the part of the learned Civil Judge, they have been short-cashed to that extent. Therefore, we do not attach any importance to the fact that there was any over-estimation, as claimed by the learned Government Advocate, by the learned Judge in arriving at the annual net income per acre of the lands in question. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY, it was pointed out that the yield could not have been so much as there was no evidence in what extent of lands which crops had been grown in the given periods. We do not find anything wrong in the method adopted by the learned judge because he took the maximum yield of each crop as if the entire seven acres was covered by such crops and thereafter he has divided by three and 2 for the crops shown as grown on the land as per average yield. In fact, that would give accurate picture of the average yield from all the seven acres. In fact, that would give accurate picture of the average yield from all the seven acres. ( 7 ) IN so far as the applicants are concerned they led no evidence to rebut the evidence let in by the claimants. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance in this appeal and we reject the same at the stage of admission. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .