Judgment :- Thanikkachalam, J.: These appeals under Sec.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the the ‘ Act ’ ) have been preferred by the Special Tahildar Acquisition), Marudha-nadhi Reservior Scheme, Dindigul against the common order of Sub Court, Dindigul in L.A.O.P.Nos.40 of 1978, 41 of 1978, 43 of 1979, 102 of 1978, 103 1978, 106 of 1978, 108 of 1977, 109 of 1977, 131 of 1979 and 226 of 1980. Appeal Nos.862 of 1982, 863 of 1982, 864 of 1982, 865 of 1982, 866 of 1982, 867 of 1982, 868 of 869 of 1982 and the cross-objector therein, 870 of 1982 and 871 of 1982 arose out of orders passed in O.P.Nos.40 and 41 of 1978, 43 of 1979, 102 of 1978, 103 of 1978, 106 1978, 108 of 1977, 109 of 1977, 131 of 1979 and 226 of 1980 respectively. 2. The acquired lands are situated in a valley at Iyampalayam village of Dindigul taluk Madurai District. The lands were acquired for the construction of a reservoir across Marudhanadhi river in Iyampalayam village, Dindigul Taluk, Madurai District. According to the award No.10 of 1977 dated 10.8.1977, notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in the Government Gazettee on 7.2.1974. So also as per award No.4 of 1979 dated 23.8.1978, Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 27.10.1976. The lands acquired which are the subject matter in these appeals are classified as Government dry lands in the revenue records. These are thopes on grounds. These are located in a valley the food of Kannivadi hills of the Western Ghats. These lands are covered on three sides hills and open only on the eastern side. The altitude is about 1100 feet above the sea level. The lands are rich with sand and alluid deposits from Marudhandhi river and other springs. The valley with the ideal climate and natural protection from the gales and wind is very congenial for growth of fruit bearing trees. Coconut trees, Mango trees, Jack-fruit trees, silk cotton trees and cashewnut trees have been planted on a scientific basis with proper specing. 3. The particulars with regard to the survey numbers, extent of the lands acquired, made by the claimants, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul are given as under: 4. 3. The particulars with regard to the survey numbers, extent of the lands acquired, made by the claimants, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul are given as under: 4. A.A.S.No.862 of 1982 (O.P.No.40 of l978) Award No.4 of 1978, dated 23.8.1978. Notification under Sec.4(1) of Act was published on 27.10.1976. The extent of the acquired land was 3.58 acres comprised in S.Nos.20/1B, 22/2B, 24/3B with an extent of 1.62, 0.96 acres respectively. The name of the claimant is R.Sundarsekar. The claimant clamed sum of Rs.8,39,000 as compensation. In these lands there are 147 coconut trees 95 cotton trees, 7 Jack trees and 2 miscellaneous trees. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.1,07.439 towards compensation, Rs.16,116.85 towards solatium totalling Rs.1,23,555.85. On a reference, the Sub Court, Dindigul awarded a sum Rs.8,19,000 towards compensation Rs.1,22,850 towards is per cent solatium totaling Rs.9,41,850 and interest at the rate of 4% was also awarded. 5. A.S.No.863 of 1982 (O.P.No.41 of 1978): Award No.4 of 1978, dated 23.8.1979. Notification under Sec.4(1) was published on 27.10.1976. The lands involved in this appeal are in Survey Nos.19/1,19/ 2. 20/1D with an extent of 1.53.002, 2.08 acres respectively totalling to 3.63 acres. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.12,58,000 towares compensation. The name of the claimant is W.P.AR.Rajaram. In these lands there are 232 cocount trees silk cotton trees, 2 tamarind trees and 5 jack fruit trees. The 11nd Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.50,082.45 with solatium of Rs.7,912.65 totalling Rs.57,995.10. On a reference, the Sub Court, Dindigul awarded a sum of Rs.12,18,000 solatuim of 15% totalling to Rs.14,00,700 Interest at the rate of 4% was also awarded. 6. A.S. No.864 of 1982 (O.P.No.43 of 1970): Award No.4 of 1978, dated 23.8.1978. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 27.10.1976. The name of claimants are M.S.N.P. Jan-ardhanam, M.S.N.P.Dhanapalan deceased M.S.N.P.Thilagamoorthy and others. The lands acquired are in Survey Numbers 23/1A2,24/1, A2, 25/1A.2 and 1826/1B.3 with an extent of 1.40.0.29, 0.14 and 3.41 acres respectively totalling to 5.24 acres. In these lands these are 186 mango trees and 18 silk cotton The claimants made a claim of Rs.9,23,200 and a solatium of Rs.1,38,480 before the Acquisition Officer totalling to Rs.10,61,680. The lands acquired are in Survey Numbers 23/1A2,24/1, A2, 25/1A.2 and 1826/1B.3 with an extent of 1.40.0.29, 0.14 and 3.41 acres respectively totalling to 5.24 acres. In these lands these are 186 mango trees and 18 silk cotton The claimants made a claim of Rs.9,23,200 and a solatium of Rs.1,38,480 before the Acquisition Officer totalling to Rs.10,61,680. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded 43,336.83 towards compemsation and Rs.6,500.52 towards solatium totaling Rs.49,837.35, On a reference, the Sub court, Dindigul awarded Rs.7,47,221.00 towards compensation 15% solatium of Rs.1,12,083.15 totalling to Rs.8.59,304.15. Interest was also awarded. 7. A.S.No.865 of 1982 (O.P.No.102 of 1978): Award No.4 of 1978, dated 23.8.1979. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 27.10.1976. The lands involved this appeal are in Survey Number 21/2 with an extent of 6.33 acres. This survey Number consisting of 6 coconut topes with 438 cocunts trees. The name of the claimant P.K.C.A.Chidambara Nadar deceased and others. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.88,065.45 a solatium of Rs.13,209.85 and interest at the rate of 4% totalling to Rs.1,01,275.30. The claimant claimed compensation to an extent of Rs.1,96,000. The Sub Court, Dindigul on a reference awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.12,42,825 and solatium at the rate of 15% per annum of Rs.1,86,423.75 totalling to Rs.14.49,248.75. Interest at the rate of 4% was also awarded. 8. A.S.N0.866 of 1982 (O.P.No.103 of 1978): Award No.10 of 1977 dated 10.8.1977. subject matter in acquisition is land in Survey No.8/2 with an extent of 5.32 acres with coconut trees in 1.00 acre, 166 mango trees in 4.37 acres and 18 silk cotton trees, fruit tree. The name of the claimant is C.Vijayarajan. The claim made by the claimant Rs.1,96,000 per acre for coconut tope and Rs.72,000 per acre for mango tope. compensation awarded by the L.A.O. was Rs.38,320.45 with a solatium of Rs.5,748.07. the total amount awarded was Rs.44,068.52. On a reference the Sub Court, Dindigul awarded a sum of Rs.4,59,550 towards enhanced compensation and Rs.68,532,50 towards solatium totalling to Rs.5,28,082.50. Interest at 4% was also awarded. 9. A.S.No.867 of 1982 (O.P.No.106 of 1978): The subject matter in this appeal are lands S.Nos.20/ 1A and 20/2A with an extent of 1.12. acres and 2.43 acres respectively totaling 3.45 acres. There are 118 coconut trees 35 silk Cotton trees and 1 jack fruit tree. claimant W.P.A.S.Krishnamunhy, claimed compensation at Rs.6,38,700. Interest at 4% was also awarded. 9. A.S.No.867 of 1982 (O.P.No.106 of 1978): The subject matter in this appeal are lands S.Nos.20/ 1A and 20/2A with an extent of 1.12. acres and 2.43 acres respectively totaling 3.45 acres. There are 118 coconut trees 35 silk Cotton trees and 1 jack fruit tree. claimant W.P.A.S.Krishnamunhy, claimed compensation at Rs.6,38,700. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.39,320.75 onwards compensation and Rs.5,898.15 towards solatium totalling to Rs.5,898.90. On a reference the Sub Court, Dindigul awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.6,11,900 and solatium of Rs.91,7S5 totalling to Rs.7,03,685. Interest 4% was also awarded. 10. A.S.No.866 of 1982 (O.P.No.103 of 1978): Award No.10 of 1977, dated 23.8.1978. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 7.2.1973. The subject matter acquisition in this appeal is 1.73 acres in Survey No.29/1. The names of the claimants T.Rajendra Nadar represented by Power Agent M.S.N.Pandia Nadar. There are Cashewnut trees in these lands. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.3,46,500 with solatium Rs.51,975 totalling to Rs.3,98,475. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation Rs.6,228 and Rs.934.20 towards solatium totalling to Rs.7,162.20. On a reference, the Court, Dindigul awarded compensation at Rs.1,26,258.75 with solatium at Rs.18,930 1981 totalling to Rs.1,45,199.56. Interest 4% was also awarded. 11. A.S.No.869 Of 1982 (O.P.No.109 of 1977): Award No.10 of 1977 was passed 10.8.1977. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 7.2.1973. The matter of the acquisition in this appeal is the lands in Survey Numbers 16/1B, 16/2,18, 19/4, 23/1B, 24/1B, 25/1B, and 25/2 with an extent of 10.52,1.18,1.56,5.73,0.35,1.60,1.78 and 0.72 acres respectively totalling to 23.49 acres. The names of the claimant are M.S.N.P. Jan-ardhanam and L.Rs.of M.S.N.P.Dhapalan and M.S.N.P.Thilagamoorthi, Padmavathiammal and Umarani. There are 443 mango trees, 451 coconut trees, trees, 1 tamarind tree and 54 silk cotton trees. The claimants claimed a sum 4.244,94,200 towards the market value also Rs.6,74,130 towards solatium, totaling Rs.51,68,330. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,92,787.90 twards market and a sum of Rs.28,918.45 towards solatium totalling to Rs.2,21,706.35. On a reference, sub Court enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs.30,50,117.50 towards market and Rs.4,57,526.70 towards solatium totalling to Rs.35,07,704.20. Interest at 4% awarded. 12. A.S.No.870 of 1982 O.P.No.131 of 1979): The name of the Claimant is minor Rangaswamy, Nagarajan though maternal guardian and power agents W.P.A.S.Nagarajan. In this appeal, the subject matter is 1.74 acres of land in S.No.20/lC and 2 acres S.No.24/3A. Interest at 4% awarded. 12. A.S.No.870 of 1982 O.P.No.131 of 1979): The name of the Claimant is minor Rangaswamy, Nagarajan though maternal guardian and power agents W.P.A.S.Nagarajan. In this appeal, the subject matter is 1.74 acres of land in S.No.20/lC and 2 acres S.No.24/3A. There are 152 coconut trees 52 silk cotton trees 1 jack fruit tree, 2 neem and 3 tamarind trees. The Sub Court awarded compensation Rs.7,98,700 with solatium Rs.1,19,805 totalling Rs.9,18,505 interest at 4% per annum. The claimant made a claim Rs.8,13,900. 13. A.S.No.871 of 1982 (O.P.No.226 of 1980): Award No.4 of 1978, dated 23.8.1978. Notification under Sec.4(1) was published on 27.10.1976. The lands involved in this are in survey Nos.329/2 with an extent of 6.85 acres. There are 642 chashewnut trees 24 silk cotton trees. The name of the claimant is Rajendran represented by Power M.S.N.P.Thilagarnoorthy. The claimant made a claim of Rs.14,84,790 towards compensation and Rs.2,22,718 towards solatium totalling to Rs.17,07,508 and the Land Acquisition awarded a sum of Rs.24,449 towards compensation and Rs.3,667.35 towards solatium totalling to Rs.28,116.35. On a reference, the Sub Court awarded Rs.12,31,235.60 compensation with solatium of Rs.1,84,695.40 totalling Rs.14,15,931. Interest at 4% also awarded. 14. The Land Acquisition Officer while ascertaining the value of the lands collected sale instances. In that process, he collected 51 sale deeds and out of these 51 instances, the Land Acquisition Officer considered that only the sale instance in Ex.A is comparable to the acquired lands. According to the Land Acquisition Officer all the are distress sales, since prior to the sales the properties were subjected to encumbrances. Therefore, he considered that the sale in Ex.A-4 alone would be comparable to the acquired. Hence, the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the sale of the property under as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. Ex.A-4 is a registration the sale deed for Rs.95,000 executed by Ponnammal in favour of minor N.Shulthan Mohideen, dated 2.2.1971. While ascertaining the value of the lands on which cashewnut trees are planted, the Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the guidelire value. Thus, basis of Ex.A-4 and the guideline value, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market of the lands that were acquired. However, on a reference the Sub-Court, Dindigul found since the lands acquired were planted with fruit bearing trees, the lands in question be valued on the basis of the guidelines value and comparable sales. Thus, basis of Ex.A-4 and the guideline value, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market of the lands that were acquired. However, on a reference the Sub-Court, Dindigul found since the lands acquired were planted with fruit bearing trees, the lands in question be valued on the basis of the guidelines value and comparable sales. Therefore, the court adopted the income capitalisation method for the purpose of determining the compensation for acquired lands. Accordingly, relying upon the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Court awarded the enhanced compensation. 15. Aggrieved by the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Marudhanadhi Reservior Scheme, Dindigul is in appeal before us. One of the claimants also filed a cross objection. Learned Advocate General appearing the state made his submissions on two major points: The first point argued by the learned Advocate-General relates to the method of valuation that has got to be adopted in matter of valuing the acquired lands. The second point relates to the determination quantum of compensation with regard to the lands acquired in the case of the each of claimant. While addressing his arguments with regard to gathered particulars with regard the guideline value prevailing in the locality during the relevant point of time. The valuation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the comparable sales and guideline value, quite correct and reasonable since this method alone is suitable to ascertain the true market values of the lands acquired. The claimants have not produced particulars with regard to the income yielding capacity of the trees in the acquired lands. Further, the claimants are not maintaining any accounts with regard to the income derived from the trees planted in the acquired lands. Therefore, in the absence of those particulars, the Land Acquisition Officer was correct in ascertaining the market value of the acquired on the basis of comparable sales and guideline value. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr.M.R.Narayanaswamy and Mr.R.Thiagarajan appearing for the claimants while supporting the method of valuation adopted by the Court, Dindigul submitted as under: The lands consisting of various fruit bearing trees is no comparable sale in the vicinity. The so-called comparable sale under Ex. A- distress sale since the property sold was subjected to usufrutuary mortgage. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr.M.R.Narayanaswamy and Mr.R.Thiagarajan appearing for the claimants while supporting the method of valuation adopted by the Court, Dindigul submitted as under: The lands consisting of various fruit bearing trees is no comparable sale in the vicinity. The so-called comparable sale under Ex. A- distress sale since the property sold was subjected to usufrutuary mortgage. The Acquisition Officer rejected all other sale instances collected by him since the properties involved in those sales are subjected to encumbrances. On the same ground, the Acquisition Officer ought to have rejected the sale under ExA-4 also. The guideline adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is fixed by the Government for registration purposes several years prior to the date of 4(1). Notification under the Act relevant to the acquired lands in question. Therefore, neither the comparable sale nor the guideline value would sufficient and helpful in the matter of ascertaining the value of the lands acquired. The in question are consisting of various high yielding varieties of fruit bearing trees. They yielding definite income. When the lands are yielding income, the value of the lands could ascertained in accordance with the income capitalisation method as stated in Chapter the Act. Almost all the experts who visited and inspected the topes in their reports uniformly agreed that the proper method of valuation of the acquired lands would be on the basis income capitalisation method. Therefore, it was submitted that the Sub-Court, Dindigul correct in adopting the income capitalisation method in ascertaining the market value of lands acquired. 17. We have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that the acquired lands situate in a valley where the claimatic condition is congenial for the growth of fruit bearing trees. The lands acquired have got natural advantages. The trees in the acquired lands highly yielding varieties. The owners of these lands adopted scientific methods in maintaining these topes. The sales in data lands collected by the Land Acquisition Officer are 3 k.m. away from habitation and 8 k.m. away from the acquired lands. The data are different in all respects from the acquired lands. The location, the tharam and the nature of the lands are also different. Almost all the experts who inspected the acquired uniformly agreed that the proper method of valuation would be income capitalisation method. The data are different in all respects from the acquired lands. The location, the tharam and the nature of the lands are also different. Almost all the experts who inspected the acquired uniformly agreed that the proper method of valuation would be income capitalisation method. The land in Ex.A-4 is not at all comparable to the acquired lands since the under Ex.A-4 is a distress sale. So also, the guideline value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was determined in the year 1967, but the compensation has got to be ascertained the years 1976 and 1978. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer adopted the value suggested by the Additional Collector. 18. When the lands are yielding income, the proper method in ascertaining the market of those lands would be by income capitalisation method, according to Chapter 15 of the Act. Before the Sub-Court, various decisions were cited order to support the plea that the proper method of valuation of the acquired lands would only income capitalisation method. Considering all these aspects, the Sub-Court, Dindigul came to the conclusion that the proper method of valuation of the acquired lands would income capitalisation method. Therefore, on a careful consideration of all these aspects, hold that the order passed by the Sub-Court that the proper method of valuation of acquired lands would be income capitalisation method is in order. Accordingly, we are inclined to interefere with the finding of the Sub-Court on this point. 19. What remains to be considered in these appeals is whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court is, in, commensurate and in accordance with the market prevailing during the relevant point of time when these lands were acquired. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that even if it is admitted that income capitalisation method is the correct method, the lower court was not correct awarding enhanced compensation, at an exhorbitant and disproportionate rate. Learned Advocate General submitted that the enhanced compensation was awarded by the Court without considering anyone of the reports filed by the experts which were marked exhibits in these proceedings. According to the learned Advocate General, the Sub awarded the enhanced compensation merely relying upon the oral evidence adduced by claimants without taking into consideration the materials available on record. It submitted that the claimants are agricultural income-tax assessees and they are paying taxes on the basis of compounding method. According to the learned Advocate General, the Sub awarded the enhanced compensation merely relying upon the oral evidence adduced by claimants without taking into consideration the materials available on record. It submitted that the claimants are agricultural income-tax assessees and they are paying taxes on the basis of compounding method. They are not maintaining any accounts regard to the income derived from the trees in the acquired lands. Therefore, according the land Advocate General the claimants do not want to produce their correct accounts regard to the income derived from the trees. In such circumstances, it was submitted their oral evidence with regard to the income yielding capacities of the trees cannot accepted without documentary evidence. Learned Advocate General pointed out that Sub-Court erred in accepting the oral evidence of the claimants in the matter of fixing value of the produce. In fact the claimants in their evidence while stating the income yielding capacities of the trees have given both the maximum income and the minimum income derived from the trees and the Sub-Court accepted the maximum income as given the claimants without any corroborating materials. Learned Advocate General pointed that it is not correct on the part of the Sub-Court to observe that the Government has produced any evidence with regard to the yielding capacity and the income derived from trees. Learned Advocate General contended that the Government deputed as many as experts to value the income yielding capacities of the trees and after inspection, they also filed their reports. Without considering these reports, the Learned Advocate General submitted that the Sub-Court grossly erred in accepting the maximum income as given the claimants in their oral evidence. Learned Advocate General argued that all the cannot yield the same uniform quantum of produce. The income, yielding capacity of tree depends upon its nature, its health, its age and its quality. All these aspects were considered by the Sub-Court. Learned Advocate General pointed out that the Sub failed to note the distinction with regard to the trees which are old, which are young which are not yielding. It was submitted that in the matter of ascertaining the value, Sub-Court was not correct in taking into consideration the maximum income per tree year, as shown by the claimants and applying a flat, uniform multiplier of 20 times kinds of trees, without considering the report filed by the experts. It was submitted that in the matter of ascertaining the value, Sub-Court was not correct in taking into consideration the maximum income per tree year, as shown by the claimants and applying a flat, uniform multiplier of 20 times kinds of trees, without considering the report filed by the experts. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the multiplier of 20 times adopted by the Sub-Court is high. According to the Advocate General, the proper multiplier would be 15 times and times, as adopted by the Sub-Court, Dindigul. In order to support his contention that times would be the proper multiplier, learned Advocate General relied upon the decisions reported in the case of Special Tahsil-dar (L.A.) v. Alavai Industries (P) Ltd, (1982)2 390, in the case of Nageswara Rao v. Spl. Dy. Collector,A.I.R. 1969A.P. 52, in the case Munisami Chetty v. Vayapuri Udayan A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 945(1) and in the case of Madras v. Mani Bharathi, 80 L.W. 370. 20. Further, the learned Advocate General submitted that even in the matter of ascertaining the value of the produce from the acquired lands, the Sub-Court was not correct in accepting the oral evidence tendered by the claimants. Advocate General pointed out that the Sub-Court erred in merely adopting the maximum value as stated by the claimants in their oral evidence without verifying the prevailing value of the produce during the relevant point of time. Learned Advocate General contended that the Sub-Court, Dindigul failed to note that the net income from the should be taken after deducting the expenditure. This was not done by the Sub Court pointed out that without deducting the expenditure, the Sub-Court accepted the maximum value as stated by the claimants in their oral evidence. Learned Advocate General pointed out that it is the net income from each tree that has got to be multiplied multiplier and not the gross income without deducting the expenditure. 21. Further learned Advocate General submitted that the acquired lands in question inspected by Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Horticulture, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. He inspected the trees one by one submitted his report. Doctor Madhava Rao was examined as P.W.5. On the basis Dr.Madhava Rao ’ s report, Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) inspected the trees in the acquired lands and filed his report Ex.A-5. He inspected the trees one by one submitted his report. Doctor Madhava Rao was examined as P.W.5. On the basis Dr.Madhava Rao ’ s report, Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) inspected the trees in the acquired lands and filed his report Ex.A-5. In the report Mr.S.Murugesan, he ascertained the average yield per tree per year and he also fixed value of the produce from the trees on scientific basis. The reports filed by Dr.Madhava and Mr.S. Muru-gesan tallies with each other. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate General, in ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands, the report filed Mr.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) should be followed. 22. Learned Advocate General further contended that in order to ascertain the market value of the produce from the acquired lands, the Special Tahsildar Acquisition) has examined persons who are doing business in these fileds and also examined the sale bils pertaining to these produces during the relevant point of time. Therefore, learned Advocate General requested that in ascertaining the correct market value lands acquired, the report filed by Mr.S.Murugesan may be considered. 23. On the other hand, Mr.M.R.Narayanaswamy and Mr.R.Thiagarajan learned appearing for various claimants contended that the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded by the sub Court is quite correct and reasonable. Learned counsel submitted the Sub-Court relying upon the materials placed by the claimants and also on the basis the oral evidence tendered by the claimant’s witnesses, determined the market value lands acquired. It was submitted that after examining various witnesses, the Sub ascertained the yielding capacity of the trees and the value of the produce from the Learned counsel further pointed out that R.W.I did not speak about the yielding capacity the trees and the value of the produce in his deposition. Therefore, in the absence material produced by the Government, the Sub-Court relying upon the evidence furnished the claimants, fixed the value of the produce from the trees. Learned counsel submitted that the acquired lands are situated on the foot of Kannivadi hills in the ghats. Therefore, the claimatic condition is ideal for fruit bearing trees and the quality fruit bearing trees in the acquired lands are high yielding varieties. Thereafter submitted that the location of the acquired lands are free from heavy wind or gale surrounding hills provide a natural barrier against such hazards. Therefore, the claimatic condition is ideal for fruit bearing trees and the quality fruit bearing trees in the acquired lands are high yielding varieties. Thereafter submitted that the location of the acquired lands are free from heavy wind or gale surrounding hills provide a natural barrier against such hazards. The availability underground water at shallow depths at all parts of the year is an unique feature renders possible to maintain an evergreen plantation without the aid of lift irrigation. location of the acquired lands is ideal for tropical plantations like mango, coconut and claimants are adopting improved modern techniques in the cultivation and thereby maximum yield from the trees in the acquired lands. Learned counsel further submitted generation after generation the claimants toiled in the acquired lands for the improvement the same. It is due to their untiring efforts the acquired lands are in an uneviable serving as a model farm. 24. Learned counsel further submitted that Ex.A-5, the report of Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar was followed only for the prupose of adopting the method of valuation it was not followed for ascertaining the quantum of compensation. The quantum compensation fixed by the Special Tahsildar is neither adequate nor commensurate prevailing market value during the relevant point of time. 25. Learned counsel submitted that the coconut trees of the acquired lands are west tall varieties with longuity of 100 years. The life time of the mango trees of the lands will be about 40 years more and the cashewnut trees of the acquired lands about another 30 years more. So also, the coconut trees will yield for not les than 30 years. The report filed by Dr.Thiru V.N.Madhava Rao would vouch safe the same. yield from the coconut trees of the acquired lands would be 200 to 250 per year, per according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. The claimants used to plough the lands and organic and inorganic manucrs. R.W.I does not state about the yield of coconut trees. yield of 200 to 250 coconuts per tree per year is supported by Ex.B-11. 26. According to the learned counsel the yield from mango trees of the acquired land to 2,500 per tree per year. The claimants used to plough the lands and organic and inorganic manucrs. R.W.I does not state about the yield of coconut trees. yield of 200 to 250 coconuts per tree per year is supported by Ex.B-11. 26. According to the learned counsel the yield from mango trees of the acquired land to 2,500 per tree per year. The average yield from the mango trees of the acquired 1,300 per year as spoken by P.Ws.1 to 5.Here also, R.W.I did not deny in his evidence yield and the rate spoken by the claimants. Learned counsel further contended that fixed by the Sub-Court is supported by the report of Thiru S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) in Ex.A-13 and the report filed by Thiru Sunda-rarajan, Director of Agriculture, in Ex.A-4. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Court was correct in fixing the quantum of yield and the value thereof from the land. It was further submitted that in the matter of ascertaining the value of the from the cashewnut trees and other trees R.W.I did not supply any materials. Therefore, Sub-Court fixed the value of the lands acquired on the basis of the evidence tendered claimants and their witnesses. 27. Learned counsel further submitted that the multiplier of 20 times adopted by the Court is very reasonable. Learned counsel pointed out that almost all the experts inspected the acquired lands uniformly agreed that the multiplier of 20 times would proper multiplier in ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. In order to their contention that 20 times would be the proper multiplier they relied upon the decisions reported in "State of Madras v. Ml s.Muppala Pada, Venkataranmiah & Sons, A.I.R. 1959 23: (1959)2 An.W.R. 378, State of West Bengal v. Shyama Pada, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 48 and Ramachandraiah L.A.Officer, Sagar.A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 701. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the quantum of enhanced compensation by the Sub-Court in the case of each of the claimant is reasonable and perfectly Learned counsel also submitted that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and interest per annum on the compensation awarded. The learned counsel Mr.Suguntharaj Radhakrishnan adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Mr.M.R.Narayanaswami and Mr.R.Thiagarajan. 28. We have heard the rival submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing on behalf claimants. The learned counsel Mr.Suguntharaj Radhakrishnan adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Mr.M.R.Narayanaswami and Mr.R.Thiagarajan. 28. We have heard the rival submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing on behalf claimants. The total extent of the lands acquired in all these appeals is approximately to be 61.95 acres of valuable tope lands. The lands are acquired for the purpose constructing a reservoir across the Marudhanathi river in Iyyampalayam village in Taluk, Madurai District. The lands acquired situate in what is known as "Kombai" Iyyampalayam village. Iyyampalayam in general is a fertile area and these particular are move fertile. The topes derive sand deposits from Marudhanathi river and the owners these topes have been enjoying these lands for several decades. These lands are situated in a valley at the foot of Kannivadi Mills in the western-ghats. A large portion tope lands under acquisition are situated on the northern side of the Marudhanathi river on the western side of the jungle stream flowing from Manalur Village. The valley lies ideal claimate with natural protection from gales and wind. The lands are situate 1100 above the sea leval. The rain fall is about 60%. The lands get advantage of sub- The location of the acquired lands is ideal for tripical plantation like mango, cashewnut trees etc., The claimants plainted fruit bearing trees, like coconut trees, trees, jack fruit trees and silk cotton trees etc., The mango plantations were raised owners by adopting scientific method of cultivation and plaint protection. Proper care been taken for manuring, ploughing of the soil, watering etc., with a view to secure yield and good economic out turn. The special efforts are taken for purning old and shoots in mango trees and systematic spraying is done to prevent pests and diseases. For the purpose of obtaining high yields denisity of the trees in the topes is proper and intensive. The mango trees are neelam kalamai. According to the claimants, the yield from mango trees of the acquired lands is to 2,500 per tree peryear and that the mango trees will yield for about 40 years more. average yield from a mango tree of the acquired lands is 1,300 per year as spoken P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. The price of mango in 1973 is Rs.22 per hundred as horne out by 26. average yield from a mango tree of the acquired lands is 1,300 per year as spoken P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5. The price of mango in 1973 is Rs.22 per hundred as horne out by 26. The price of mango is Rs.40 per hundred in 1977 as borne out by Ex.A-27. 29. The coconut trees of the acquired lands are west coast ‘tall varieties’. They are planted scientifically with spacing of 20’ to 21’. In coconut tope manure for plantation was applied and ploughing was done. The size of the coconut from these topes is very big, according the claimants. The trees are healthy and young. The claimants state that the life time of coconut trees is 100 years. The yield from the coconut trees of the acquired lands is 200 250 coconuts per tree per year as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. According to Thampan, expert, the west ward tall variety will yield 30 to 100 coconuts per year. The claimants pointed out that Thampan’s opinion is with regard to the yield of coconut trees in general and with special reference to Kerala. In Kerala manure is not applied and ploughing coconut topes is not done, but in the acquired lands, organic and inorganic manures used in abundance and ploughing was done. Therefore, the claimants submitted that opinion given by Mr.Thampan cannot be made applicable to the trees in the acquired According to the claimants, the yield from the coconut tree is 250 per tree per year. So as he price of the coconut is concerned, the claimants submitted that the price of coconut of the acquired lands during the relevant ranges from Rs.1.45 paise. However, Sub-Court took the price of the coconut at Rs.1 per nut during the relevant period. 30. The yield from silk cotton trees was stated to be 1500 pods per year per tree. The of the silk cotton pod is Rs.35 to 50 per 1000. The income from the silk cotton tree is per year per tree, according to the evidence of P.W.I. Therefore, Sub-Court took the that the price of the silk cotton during the relevant period is Rs.35 to 50 per 1000 pods. 31. So far as the cashewnut trees are concerned, the claimants stated that these will for thirty years more and that the yield is 15 kilo per trees per year according to evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 31. So far as the cashewnut trees are concerned, the claimants stated that these will for thirty years more and that the yield is 15 kilo per trees per year according to evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The yield of cashewnut tree is 400 kgs. per year as per Ex.A The claimants have claimed for cashewnut per kilo at the rate of Rs.3. According to claimants, the income from the jack fruit trees is Rs.50 per tree per year and the trees yield for 30 years more. The yield from the tamarind tree is 200 maunds per year per The price of the tamarind tree is Rs.1 per maund. 32. The Sub-Court was of the view that the quan-tum of yield and the value thereof submitted by the claimants are accorect and reasonable. Since according to the Sub there is no evidence contra regarding the yield and the income from the trees in acquired lands and since R.W.I has not stated anything about the yield and income it has accept the evidence tendered by the claimants. It is under these circumstances, the Court ascertained the value of the produce from the acquired lands by applying the of 20 times. 33. Thus we have set out the facts in detail. Now we will consider what would be the multiplier to be adopted according to the facts appearing in this case. So far as the is concerned, learned Advocate General submitted that the proper multiplier would times. In support of his contention, learned Advocate General relied upon a decision in the case of Nageswara Rao v. Special Deputy Collector, A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 52, wherein Andhra Pradesh High Court adopted the multiplier of 15 times, while ascertaining the coconut topes. Adopting the view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Madras Court in a decision reported in Special Tahsildar (L.A.) v.Alavai Industries (P) Ltd., M.L.J. 390, also held that 15 years purchase value would be sufficient in ascertaining value of coconut tope. Further, the learned Advocate General in order to support contention relied upon another decision reported in the case of Shanmugha Mudaliar v. Collector of Tanjore, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 945(2): 23 L. W. 336. 34. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended proper multiplier to be adopted in the present case considering the nature and quality trees in the acquired lands would be 20 times. 945(2): 23 L. W. 336. 34. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended proper multiplier to be adopted in the present case considering the nature and quality trees in the acquired lands would be 20 times. In order to support their contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in State of Madras M/s.Muppala Pada, Venkataramaniah & Sons, A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 23: (1959)2 An.W.R. 378. this context, another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants was reported in the case of State of West Bengal v. Shyama Pada, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1723. 35. The fact remains that several persons inspected these acquired lands and filed reports. Ex. A-13 in O.P.No.108 of 1977 is the copy of notes of inspection S.Meenakshisundaram, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). In his report, he suggested in the manual it is specified that the multiplier of 20 times would be proper in valuing lands with fruit bearing trees. In Ex.A-5 dated 18.5.1974 in O.P.No.108 of 1977, S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has suggested that the proper multiplier would be 20 times. Ex.A-2, dated 9.5.1974 in O.P.No.108 of 1977 is the report of inspection of lands by Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Harticulture Agriculture University, Coimbatore. In his report, he suggested that the trees in the acquired lands may yield for another 20 years more. Ex.A-4 in O.P.No.108 of 1977 is the report Thiru J.Sundarraj, Joint Director of Agriculture. Even in his report be suggested that the in the acquired lands will yield for another 20 years. The said Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao examined as a witness. Almost all the experts, who inspected the acquired lands suggested that the coconut trees and the mango trees in the acquired lands would yield not less for 20 years more. However, valuing the lands with coconut topes, this Court in the Shanmugha Velayudha Mudaliar v. Collector of Tanjore, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 945(2): 23 336, held that in the case of coconut topes ten years purchase on the average income yield-ing plus the value of the timber of the non-yielding trees would be the proper basis fixing the market value. However, valuing the lands with coconut topes, this Court in the Shanmugha Velayudha Mudaliar v. Collector of Tanjore, A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 945(2): 23 336, held that in the case of coconut topes ten years purchase on the average income yield-ing plus the value of the timber of the non-yielding trees would be the proper basis fixing the market value. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Shyama Pada, 1975 S.C. 1723, while considering the quantum of compensation for the acquired lands coconut trees held that the land owners should be awareded compensation at the rate times the annual income from the land. It also remains to be seen that in the case of Madras v. M/s. Veppulaped Venkataram-niah & Sons, A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 23:(1957)2 An.W.R.378, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering the value of the lands coconut trees pointed out that the multiplier of 15 times would be proper. 36. We have already seen that the coconut trees and the mango trees in the acquired are high yielding varieties. The topes were looked after by the claimants with great care, applying all scientific methods. Almost all the experts, who inspected the trees acquired lands agreed with the view that the coconut trees and the mango trees would not less than 20 years more. Thus considering the quality of the lands acquired and the standing thereon in the light of the reports filed by various experts and the pronouncements cited supra, we are also of the view that the proper multiplier for the acquired lands would be 20 times in so far as the lands with coconut and mango are concerned. To that extent, we hold that the finding giving by the Sub-Court is in order. 37. However, so far as the cashewnut trees are concerned, Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao pointed that the cashwnut plantation will yield for another 10 years more. So also, S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) pointed out in his report that the cashwnut trees may yield for 10 more years. However, Thiru S.Meenakshisundaram, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) pointed out that the cashwnut trees in the acquired lands would another 20 years more. But, however, he has not given any scientific basis to come conclusion. Hence, we would adopt 10 times as the multiplier in the matter of valuing lands with cashwnut trees. However, Thiru S.Meenakshisundaram, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) pointed out that the cashwnut trees in the acquired lands would another 20 years more. But, however, he has not given any scientific basis to come conclusion. Hence, we would adopt 10 times as the multiplier in the matter of valuing lands with cashwnut trees. So far as the silk cotton, jack fruit and tamarind trees concerned, it was stated that they are having long life of 50 to 60 years. Hence, the with these trees can also be ascertained by applying the multiplier of 20 times. There also other kinds of trees like Koyya and Oranges. They have got very short life. Further, are young. The value was therefore, estimated taking into consideration the age plaints and approximate exponditure incurred for growing up. So far as the Neem concerned, it was valued as a timber or as firewood, according to the maturity of the These details are found in the report filed in the report filed by Thiru S.Murugesan, Tahsildar, in the reports filed by Thiru S.Meenakshisundaram and others no such details found. 38. So far as the number of trees in each appeal is concerned, there is no dispute. dispute is with regard to the quantity of the yields and the market value thereof. though the claimants are maintaining their topes on a scientific basis, according to them are not maintaining any accounts for the income derived from the produce of these lands. They are the assessees of agricultural income-tax. Since there is no account, agricultural income-tax was levied on the basis of compounding method. Therefore, quantum of yield and the value of the produce from the acquired lands has got ascertained from various other factors. However, on these aspects there are two reports by the Special Tahsildar viz., Mr.Meenakshisundaram, and Mr.V.N. Madhavarao, and Head of the Department of horticulture, Agricultural University, Coimbatore. All reports do not give so much of details. The report filed by Dr.V.M. Madhava Rao particulars with regard to the lifetime and the yielding capacity of the trees. But the filed by Thiru Meenakshisunda-ram and Thiru S.Murugesan contain not only the quality, time and yielding capacity of the trees, but also the value of the produce from the during the relevant point of time. Ex.A-2 dated 9.5.1974 and Ex.A-3 dated 16.5.1974 expert reports relating to the acquired lands by Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao. But the filed by Thiru Meenakshisunda-ram and Thiru S.Murugesan contain not only the quality, time and yielding capacity of the trees, but also the value of the produce from the during the relevant point of time. Ex.A-2 dated 9.5.1974 and Ex.A-3 dated 16.5.1974 expert reports relating to the acquired lands by Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao. They were marked Exs.A-2 and A-3 in O.P.No.108 of 1977. The report submitted by Thiru S.Murugesan marked as Ex.A-5 dated 18.5.1974 in O.P.No.108 of 1977. The copy of the report Meenakshisunda-ram was marked as Ex.A-13 dated 23.10.1974 in O.P.No.108 of Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao inspected the trees in the acquired lands one by one. The report by Dr.Madhava Rao was taken into consideration in the other reports. On the side State, one Thiru Seetharaman was examined as R.W.I. Inspite of the fact that all reports were marked as Exhibits in these proceedings and R.W.I was examined on of the State, the Sub-Court pointed out that there is no evidence either oral or documentary on the side of the State in the matter or proving the quantity of the yield from the trees the value thereof. On a perusal of the materials available on record, we are of the that this finding of the Sub-Court appears to be erroneous and perverse. While ascertaining the yielding capacity of the trees and the value thereof, the Sub-Court has not taken consideration these reports filed by the experts and the Land Acquisition Tahsildars. Sub-Court merely adopted the oral evidence given by the claimants. In the oral the claimants have stated in so far as the yield and the minimum yield. The Sub adopted the maximum yield. In the matter of the price of the produce also, the state in their oral evidence the price ranging from minimum to maximum, but the Sub adopted the maximum price to the extent possible. In the matter of applying the multiplier, the Sub-Court adopted the multiplier of 20 times uniformly for all the trees. But, the filed by various persons as stated above would go to show that the yielding capacity kind of trees is different from another kind of tree. In the case of cashewnut tree stated that the yielding capacity is only ten years more. But the Sub-Court adopted multiplier of 20 times, even for valuing the lands with cashewnut trees. Generally, trees cannot yield the same quantity of produce. In the case of cashewnut tree stated that the yielding capacity is only ten years more. But the Sub-Court adopted multiplier of 20 times, even for valuing the lands with cashewnut trees. Generally, trees cannot yield the same quantity of produce. It may differ from tree to tree. There young trees. No distinction was made by the Sub-Court with regard to the young trees the grown up trees. While ascertaining the income from the produce of the trees acquired land, the expenditure incurred under various heads for getting maximum yield not taken into consideration. In order to find out the net income, the expenditure should deducted from the gross income. This was not done by the Sub-Court. There accounts to show the amount of expenditure incurred by the claimants. The claimants according to their own statements, incurred enormous expenditure in the matter maintaining manuring, ploughing, pests controlling the trees in the acquired lands. they are incurring expenditure for transporting the produce from the tope to the market. these expenditure were not ascertained and deducted from the total income from produce, by the Sub-Court. Even in the matter of ascertaining the value of the produce, Sub-Court did not consider the value as shown by the Special Tahsildars in their reports. the other hand, the Sub-Court simply adopted the value as stated by the claimants oral evidence and as spoken to by their witnesses. On account of these defects, unable to accept the methods adopted by the Sub-Court in the matter of ascertaining yielding capacity of the trees and the value thereof. Therefore we hold that the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court in the case of each and every one of the is exhorbitant, exceptionally high and without any scientific basis, for all these reasons. are unable to accept the quantum of enhanced compensation awarded, by the Sub-Court. 39. Thus, it remains to be seen that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court is too Under such circumstances, we would proceed to determine the enhanced compensation the materials available on record. We have already set out the particulars with regard claim made by the claimants, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition and the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court. We have already set out the particulars with regard claim made by the claimants, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition and the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub-Court. At this juncture, for the convenience and comparison we would also point out in each of the appeal the amounts compensation suggested by Thiruvalargal S.Murugesan and S.Meenakshi-sundaram, Tahsildars and the amounts awarded by the Sub-Court by way of enhanced compensation. 40. So also Thiru S.Meenakshisundaram Special Tahsildar in his report ascertained the of the acquired lands on the basis of income capitalisation method as under: This valuation given in this report appears to be on the basis of rough and ready method. 41. So far as the yield is concerned with regard to the conconut trees, the claimed the yield would be 200 to 250 coconuts per tree per year. The Sub-Court the yield from the coconut trees of the acquired lands at 250 per tree per year. So far mango trees are concerned, the claimants claimed that the yield per tree per year 700 to 2500. The average yield was worked out to 1300 per tree per year. This was by the Sub-Court. So far as the silk cotton trees are concerned, according to the claimants, the yield from the silk ctton trees is 1500 pods per 1. Coconut yielding 1568 x 100 x 20 1568 31,36,000.00 Coconut young yielding 534 x 100 x 15 534 8,01,000.00 2. Mango yielding 764 x 150 x 20 764 22,92,000.00 Mango young yielding 2 x 150 x 20 2 600.00 3. Jack yielding 11 x 50 x 20 11 11,000.00 4. Silk cotton yielding 457 x 33 x 20 457 3,01,620.00 Silk cotton young yielding 5 x 33 x 15 457 2,475.00 5. Cashewnut yielding 415 x 28 x 20 415 2,32,400.00 6. Tamarind yielding 4 x 50 x 20 4 4,000.00 --------------- 67,81095.00 Miscellaneous (plus) 7,875.00 --------------- 67,88,970.00 --------------- tree per year. This was accepted by the Sub-Court. In the matter of cashwnut trees, the claimants claimed the yield at 15 kgs. per tree per year. The yield of cashwnut per tree is kgs. according to Ex.A-4, which is letter written by Director of Agriculture to the Commissioner Land Revenue and Settlement. This was adopted by the Sub-Court. The yield from the tamarind tree was stated to be 20 maunds per tree peryear according to the claimants. per tree per year. The yield of cashwnut per tree is kgs. according to Ex.A-4, which is letter written by Director of Agriculture to the Commissioner Land Revenue and Settlement. This was adopted by the Sub-Court. The yield from the tamarind tree was stated to be 20 maunds per tree peryear according to the claimants. This was accepted by the Sub-Court. For jack-fruit trees, the claimants claimed 50 per tree per year for a period of 30 years. Thus, on the basis of the evidence rendered by the claimants, the Sub-Court determined the yields from the trees in the acquired lands. 42. In the report filed by Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar so far as the mango trees concerned, he grouped these trees according to their yield capaity, as under: For the purpose of working of total yield the average yield from the tree were taken 125,400, 600,800,1250,1750 and 2000 respectively. 43. In so far as the coconut trees are concerned, he divided these trees into five groups For the purpose of working out the total yield the average is taken as 30,90,150 and respectively. 44. As regards the silk cotton trees, he stated the yield would be 400 to 600 pods per per tree. The average was expected to be at 500. In so far as the cashewnut trees concerned, the average yield was taken at 4 kg. per tree. The jack fruit tree according him would yield an average of 25 fruits per year. In the report filed by S.Meenakshisundaram, the Special Tahsildar, it was stated that the coconut tree may 200 to 250 coconuts peryear per tree. According to him, a mango tree can yield 1000 1200 mangoes per tree peryear. He pointed out that each jackfruit tree willyield an average of 25 jackfruit per year per tree. So far as the silk cotton trees are concerned, he was of opinion that it would yield 1000 to 1200 pods, per year per tree. So far as the cashwnut trees are concerned, he pointed out that each cashewnut tree will yield an average of 10 20 kgs. per tree per year. 45. In the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, Thiru S.Murugesan, he adopted the price each coconut at 0.60 p. He fixed the price on his local enquiry and verification of bills agricultural marketing agents and wholesale dealers, who have purchased coconuts from acquired lands. per tree per year. 45. In the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, Thiru S.Murugesan, he adopted the price each coconut at 0.60 p. He fixed the price on his local enquiry and verification of bills agricultural marketing agents and wholesale dealers, who have purchased coconuts from acquired lands. Thiru S.Meenakshisundaram in his report adopted the price for each coconut at 0.50 p. on an average basis. However, the State by way of additional evidence filed price index for coconut during the relevant point of time published in Gazette. Ex.B Gazette publication dated 14.8.1974, according to which the price per coconut was slated be 0.70 paise. The Sub-Court adopted Re.1 per nut. Learned Advocate General insisted the price as stated in the Gazette should be adopted for the purpose of fixing the value coconuts from the acquired lands. 46. So far as the mango trees are concerned, the price of the mango in 1973 is fixed Rs.22 per hundred and the price of mango in 1977 was fixed at Rs.40 per hundred by sub court. According to the Sub-Court, the yield and the rate of mango was not denied R.W.I in his evidence. The income from the silk cotton trees is Rs.10 per year per according to the evidence of P.W.2. The price of silk cotton during the relevant period Rs.35 to 50 per 1000 pods. This was accepted by the Sub-Court as stated by the claimants. The price of cashewnut in 1966-1977 per quintal is Rs.475 and Rs.843.75 p. respectively stated by the claimants. The claimants also claimed for cashwnut perkid at Rs.3. The income from the jack fruit tree was claimed at Rs.50 per tree per year. The yield from the tamarind was Re.1 per maund. The claimants estimate of income was based on Exs.B-2,B- 13, B-18 and B-19, according to the Sub-Court. The Sub-Court was of the view that estimates of the income of the claimants from the acquired land is quite reasonable supported by Ex.B-6. 47. Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar in his report pointed out that on oral enquiries, was learnt that the average cost price of 100 mangoes would be Rs.17.80. In circumstances, he took the price of mango per hundred at Rs.15.50. 47. Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar in his report pointed out that on oral enquiries, was learnt that the average cost price of 100 mangoes would be Rs.17.80. In circumstances, he took the price of mango per hundred at Rs.15.50. So far as the cashewnut is concerned report, Thiru S.Murugesan pointed out that on oral enquiries, it was learnt that the average costs price of raw cashewnut duringl971-72 and l973 upto 7.2.1973 was Rs.2 per kg. rate was adopted. So far as the jack fruit tree is concerned, in his report, Thiru Murugesan pointed out that the average fetching price during 1970-71 and 1971-72 was ascertained be Rs.2 per fruit. The annual income per tree was taken as Rs.50 per tree. So far as the cotton trees are concerned, the annual income from these trees was taken at Rs.11.00 tree. According to Thiru S.Murugesan, the produce from the tamarind trees would be per maund. The striking and picking charges will be Rs.5 per tree. The income determined on the above rate. So far as the cashewnut trees are concerned, almost reports filed by the experts show that the yielding capacity of these trees would be ten more. But, the Sub-Court adopted the multiplier of 20 times for the cashewnut trees also the report filed by Thiru S.Meenakshisundaranr Rs.1.50 was adopted as the average income per tree. The net annual income per tree from jack fruit was taken at Rs.50. The annual income per silk cotton tree was taken at Rs.33 Rs.28 per tree was adopted as average net income. So far as the tamarind tree is concered Rs.50 was adopted as average net income per tree. 48. It remains to be seen that Dr.V.N.Madhava Rao filed his report, after inspecting trees one by one. In his report he stated about the yielding capacity of the trees acquired lands. In his report he further stated that the estimate done by him and that Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Mr.S.Murugesan were compared and it was found their estimates tally with each other to the extent of 95% Thiru N.S.Sunderrajan, Director of Agriculture also filed a report. In his report it is slated as under: “I examined detail the valuation made by Thiru Murugesan (Former Land Aquisition Officer) who estimated the value of the plantation by capitalising the net income based on the report Dr.Madhava Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Horticulture. In his report it is slated as under: “I examined detail the valuation made by Thiru Murugesan (Former Land Aquisition Officer) who estimated the value of the plantation by capitalising the net income based on the report Dr.Madhava Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Horticulture. Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in respect of mango and cashewnut plantations, as well as the valuation of coconut plantation by the then Land Acquisition Officer Thiru Murugesan. I made a few randern estimates on yield for the above plantation. I agree in general that the above valuation and consider it quite reasonable. ” Thiru J.S.Sunderraj, is also an authority in the matter of valuing the coconut, mango, cashewnut and other commercial plantations. 49. Thus, we have critically examined the reports filed by various authorities. We have considered the evidence adduced by the claimants and the appellant herein, and we have heard the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. a careful consideration of all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the report filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Thiru S.Murugesan appears to be a scientific one, based upon sound principles and it can withstand all the standard tests applicable in the matter ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands with plantation. Therefore, we accept the report filed by Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), as the basis in the matter of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands in these appeals. 50. However, we consider that after all an estimate is an estimate for all practical purposes and it cannot be accurate. Considering the fact that there may be some flucturations in the matter of estimating the yields from the trees and the value thereof, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to give some increase over and above what was determind compensation by the said Thiru S.Murugesan, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), in his reports. Therefore, we hold that each of the claimant is entitled to not only the amount compensation as determined by the said S.Murugesan, (Land Acquisition), in his report, but also another 25% over and above the said amount. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the enjanced compensation in the abovesaid manner, and pay the amount, to each of the claimants. 51. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the enjanced compensation in the abovesaid manner, and pay the amount, to each of the claimants. 51. The claimants have claimed solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 2%. The references in these cases were dealt with and disposed of by the Sub-Court, Dindigul 11.7.1982 i.e., in between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984 and hence as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc.,A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933, the claim-ants would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and not 15% as awarded by the Sub-Court. Applying the above said decision we hold that the claimants would be entitled to solatium the rate of 30%. 52. In so far as interest is concerned, in view of the decisions of this Court in the case Assistant Collector, Tiruvallur v. C.Rama Moorthy, A.S.No.34 of 1985 Judgment 5.7.1989, and in the case of Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Highways, Thiruvelveli Srilasri Shanmugha Gnanasamban-tha Pramachariswamy Dhamiapuram,A.S.No.467 and of 1984 dated 11.7.1989, the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% annum from the date when the possession was taken till the date of payment of the amount of compensation. 53. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Marudhanathi Reservoir Scheme, Dindigul are allowed to the extent as indicated above the cross objection in A.S.No.869 of l982 stands dismissed. There will be no order costs. These Appeals and Memorandum of cross-objections in Appeal No.869 of 1982, having set down for being mentioned on Fridays the 4th day of January, 1991 and 18th January 1991 in the presence of the said Advocates and having stood over for consideration till Friday, the 25th day of January 1991, the Judgment of the Court was delivered Thanikkachalam, J.: On being mentioned by the learned counsel for respondents/claimants these appeals came up for hearing today. 54. 54. A.S.Nos.868 and 869 of 1982: In these appeals the learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Umapathy submitted that in view of the proviso to Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, respondents are entitled to 15% interest per annum from the beginning of the second from the date of taking over possession till the date of deposit of excess compensation awarded, since the excess compensation was admittedly deposited after the expiry year period from the date of taking over possession. In support of this contention was placed on an earlier decision of this Court (in which one of us KATJ was a party) A.S.Nos.332 of 1984, 591, 592, 626, 649 and 987 of 1985 dated 31.7.1989 in the E.Balakrishnan v. R.D.O. Kumbakonam, wherein this Court awarded interest at the 15% per annum in similar circumstances. We have also heard the learned Advocate on this point. 55. It remains to be seen that this point was not argued at that time when these came up for hearing before us originally. In the instant case admittedly the compensation was deposited into court after the expiry of one year period from the taking over possession. Proviso to Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act states that “of the court may also direct that where such excess on any part thereof is paid into after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has been paid into court before the date of such expiry.” 56. Thus, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents well as the proviso to Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act and keeping in mind the decision of this Court cited supra, we hold that the respondents are entitled to 15% per annum on excess compensation as prayed for. Thus, the respondents are entitled interest on the excess compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter 15% interest per annum on the excess compensation from beginning of the second year from the date of taking over possession till the date of such excess compensation in Court. Thus, the respondents are entitled interest on the excess compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter 15% interest per annum on the excess compensation from beginning of the second year from the date of taking over possession till the date of such excess compensation in Court. This benefit will be available to all other respondents also in the above appeals A.S.Nos.862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870 and 1982. 57. This finding on this point will supersede our earlier finding given in para 52 common judgment dated 20.8.1990 in the above said appeals. To this extent, our common judgment dated 20.8.1990 in the above said appeals would stand modified. 58. A.S.Nos.864 and 971 of 1982: The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in these two appeals Sec.4(1) Notification was issued on 27.1.1976 and Special Tahsildar, Murugesan filed his report on 19.6.1974 i.e., two years prior to the of Sec.4(1) Notification. Therefore, it was submitted that the respondents are unable to their calculation memo as directed by this Court in its common judgment in the above appeals dated 20.8.1990. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel was the report filed by the said Murugesan, Special Tahsildar did not relate to the lands which are the subject matter in these two appeals and therefore calculation memo could not be filed on the basis of that report. have also heard the learned Advocate General on this aspect, who also agreed that the. report filed by the Special Tahsildar, Murugesan did not relate to the lands which are subject matter in these two appeals. But the fact remains that this matter was not brought to our notice when these appeals were originally heard by us. Under such circumstances, have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Advocate-General in the matter of determining the compensation on the acquired lands, which are the subject matter in these two appeals. The extent of the lands acquired which are the subject matter in these two appeals are as under: 60. In the lands which are the subject matter in these two appeals, there are mango trees, cashewnut trees and silk-cotton trees. The acquired lands were directed to be valued income capitalisation method. The extent of the lands acquired which are the subject matter in these two appeals are as under: 60. In the lands which are the subject matter in these two appeals, there are mango trees, cashewnut trees and silk-cotton trees. The acquired lands were directed to be valued income capitalisation method. The respondents did not produce any accounts to show income yielding capacity of the trees not did they file any export report to support valuation given by them. So far as the number of trees standing on the lands, acquired these two appeals are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. In the calculation memo filed by the respondents number of trees are given. The dispute is only with regard the quantum of yield and the value thereof. In so far as the quantum of yield per mango tree is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no interference called for with the quantum as fixed by the lower Court. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General contended that the quantum should be fixed at 625 mangoes per tree a period of one year. We have seen that the lower court has no basis to fix the quantum yield per mango tree as shows in its award. Considering the exports reports filed with regard to the adjacent lands, We agree with the learned Advocate General and fix the yield A.S.No.864 of 1982 (O.P.No.43 of 1979) A.S.No.871 of 1982 (O.P.No.226 of 1980) 1. S.No.23/lA2 2. S.No.24/lA2 3. S.No.25/lA2 4. S.N0.1826/1B3 1.40 acres 0.29 acres 0.14 acres 3.41 acres Land S.No.329/2 Extend 6.50 acres Cashewnut trees 624 Silkcotton trees 24 ----------- 5.24 acres ----------- Mango tree Silk-cotton trees 186 18 60. In the lands which are the subject matter in these two appeals, there are mango cashewnut trees and silk-cotton trees. The acquired lands were directed to be valued income capitalisation method. The respondents did not produce any accounts to show income yielding capacity of the trees not did they file any export report to support valuation given by them. So far as the number of trees standing on the lands, acquired these two appeals are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. In the calculation memo filed by the respondents number of trees are given. The dispute is only with the quantum of yield and the value thereof. So far as the number of trees standing on the lands, acquired these two appeals are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. In the calculation memo filed by the respondents number of trees are given. The dispute is only with the quantum of yield and the value thereof. In so far as the quantum of yield per tree is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that no interference called for with the quantum as fixed by the lower Court. On the other hand, the Advocate General contended that the quantum should be fixed at 625 mangoes per a period of one year. We have seen that the lower court has no basis to fix the quantum yield per mango tree as shows in its award. Considering the exports reports filed with to the adjacent lands, We agree with the learned Advocate General and fix the mango tree per year at 625. There is also no dispute with regard to the yielding period years for the mango trees as determined earlier. Therefore, a multiplier of 20 times directed to be adopted. In so far as the value of the mangoes are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award given by the court below. On other hand, the learned Advocate-General contended that the value of the mangoes maybe fixed at the rate of Rs.20 per hundred, plus 25% thereof. Considering the reports filed the exports with regard to the adjacent lands, we are agreeable with the learned Advocate General in fixing the value of the mangoes at Rs.25 per hundred. Accordingly, the value 100 mangoes are fixed at Rs.25 per hundred. 61. So far as the cashewnut trees are concerned, in the matter of number of trees in acquired lands there is dispute. The number of trees in the acquired lands are given in calculation memo filed by the respondents. The dispute is only with regard to the quantm yield and the value thereof. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the yield per tree should be taken as fixed by the lower Court. On the other hand, learned Advocate-General contended that the yield per tree should be taken at 7 kgs. The dispute is only with regard to the quantm yield and the value thereof. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the yield per tree should be taken as fixed by the lower Court. On the other hand, learned Advocate-General contended that the yield per tree should be taken at 7 kgs. Thequantum of yield per cashewnut tree as fixed by the lower court has no basis Considering the reports filed by the experts with regard to the adjacent lands, were are agreeable with learned Advocate General in fixing the quantum at 7 kgs. per tree per year. In so far as value of the cashewnut are concerned, the learned Advocate General suggested that value of 1 kg., should be taken at Rs.2.25 plus 25% thereof. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the value fixed by the lower court should not be disturbed. view of the reports filed by the experts with regard to the adjacent lands, we are agreeable with the learned Advocate General and fix the value of the cashewnuts at Rs.2.85 (rounded off) per kg. The cashewnut trees can yield for a period of 10 years only. The respondents counsel countended that the multiplier should be taken at 20 times. Considering the exports reports relating to the adjacent lands, we fix the multiplier as 10 times. Therefore the yield of the cashewnut trees are directed to be determined at 7 kgs. Per tree per year for a period of 10 years and the value of 1 kg of cashewnut is determined at Rs.2,85. 62. So far as the silk cotton trees are concerned, no arguments was advanced. Hence, direct the value of the silk cotton trees should be taken as per the value shown in the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, Murugesan. 63. Accordingly, the decision rendered today in determining the compensation in the above said two appeals A.S.No.864 and 871 of 1982 would stand supersede our earlier common judgment rendered in the abovesaid appeals on 20.8.1990. To this extent, the earlier common judgment in the above said appeals dated 20.8.1990 stands modified. 64. In A.S.Nos.862 to 871 of 1982 the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claimants are entitled to additional compensation under Sec.23(1 the Land Acquisition Act from the date of Sec.4(1) Notification. This point was also argued at the time when these appeals were heard originally. 64. In A.S.Nos.862 to 871 of 1982 the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claimants are entitled to additional compensation under Sec.23(1 the Land Acquisition Act from the date of Sec.4(1) Notification. This point was also argued at the time when these appeals were heard originally. It remains to be seen that those appeals Sec.4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published 27.10.1976,and the award No.4 of 1978 was passed by the Collector on 23.8.1978. Hence 30.4.1982 on proceedings eas pending before the Collector. Therefore, Sec.30(1)(a) is applicable to the facts of this case. Since the proceedings for acquisition in this commenced before 30.4.1982, Sec.30(1)(b) is also not attracted to this case respondents, claimants are therefore not entitled to have this amount provided under Sec.23 (l-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. This view was taken following the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in the case of Union of India v. Filip Tiago De.-Gama of Vasco De. Gama, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 981. Accordingly, the Submissioner made by the claimants respondents, Counsel on this aspect in the above said appeals are rejected. 65. In the result the common judgment rendered in A.S.Nos.862 to 871 of 1982 20.8.1990 stands modified to the above said extent. There will be no order as to costs. The claimants are directed to file their calculation memos within two weeks from today and office is directed to draft the decrees within four weeks thereafter. Ex.B-4 printed copy the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Supplement to part VI Sec.1 dated 14.8.1974. These Appeals and Memorandum of cross objections in Appeal No.869 of 1982, having set down this Friday the 27th day of September 1991 for being mentioned in the presence the said Advocates. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.A.Thanikkachalam, J.: A.S.Nos.864 and 871 of 1982 came up for hearing on mentioned. In so far as A.S.No.864 of 1982 is concerned, the learned counsel for claimants submitted that the value of the cattle shed amounting to Rs.11,771 determined by the Sub-Court, was not disputed by the Government. It was, therefore, pleaded that the value determined by the Sub-Court should prevail. On hearing both Sides, we hold this since the value determined for the cattle shed by the Sub-Court was disputed, the same would prevail and the claimants will be entitled to that amount awarded by the Sub-Court. It was, therefore, pleaded that the value determined by the Sub-Court should prevail. On hearing both Sides, we hold this since the value determined for the cattle shed by the Sub-Court was disputed, the same would prevail and the claimants will be entitled to that amount awarded by the Sub-Court. In so far as No.871 of 1982 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Sub-Court fixed the value of 23 teakwood trees at Rs.690 and the of four miscellaneous trees at Rs.300, totalling Rs.990. According to the learned counsel the claimants, this was also not disputed by the Government. Therefore, the determined by the Sub-Court should prevail. On hearing both the sides, we hold that value fixed by the Sub-Court with regard to the 23 teakwood trees and four miscellaneous trees at Rs.990 should prevail and the claimants are entitled to the same. This order will form part of the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in the abovesaid appeals. Appeal allowed in part memorandum of Cross objections dismissed.