JUDGMENT K.T. Thomas J. 1. All the above cases were heard as a batch since there are some common features as between them. The lands involved in all the cases were acquired by Government for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project. The lands are situate adjacent to each other. Both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court adopted the method of capitalisation of annual net income derived from the improvements made in the land as for assessing the land value. The State has filed these appeals as the market value assessed by the reference court was far higher than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (corresponding to S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition (Central) Act (for short 'the Act') was issued in respect of all these cases on 18-9-1978, except in one case i.e. L.A.A.No. 185/85 (which arose from L.A.R.No.427/82) in which the notification was issued on 10-10-1978. The date of award in all the cases was 5-4-1980. However, possession was taken by the Government on different dates (in L. A. A.No. 185/85 possession was taken on 7-3-1980 in L.A.A. Nos.193/85, 177/85 and 195/85 possession was taken on 7-4-1980 whereas in L.A.A.No. 196/85, possession was taken on 15-5-1980). 3. Different methods are seen followed in ascertaining market value of the land when acquired for public purposes. The land value must be fixed as on the date of the notification issued under S.4(1) of the Act. The opinion of experts, or the price paid in a bona fide transaction of the land acquired within a reasonable proximity of time or prices paid for lands situated near to the acquired land possessing similar advantages are some of the general guidance for ascertaining the land value. If there is nonavailability of materials to follow any such mode the method of capitalising the actual profits from the land or the rent of a number of years' purchase would be resorted to. However, this last method is resorted to only as a last alternative when other modes fail. 4. In the present cases Land Acquisition Officer adopted the capitalisation method in the absence of comparable sale deeds. The acquired lands contained yielding coconut trees, arecanut trees and pepper wines. Land Acquisition Officer relied on the price of commodities as published by the Government for the purpose of Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. 4. In the present cases Land Acquisition Officer adopted the capitalisation method in the absence of comparable sale deeds. The acquired lands contained yielding coconut trees, arecanut trees and pepper wines. Land Acquisition Officer relied on the price of commodities as published by the Government for the purpose of Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. But the reference court adopted the price of commodities as published by the Government through a notification dated 29-5-1979. Learned Sub judge pointed out that in another land acquisition reference the same notification was relied on by the court in spite of the fact that S.4(1) notification was issued in that case almost 7 months earlier. 5. We would point out that no contention has been made before us that the value of commodities adopted by the reference court was faulty or unreliable. The only point urged on behalf of the Government is that the multiple of 16 fixed by the reference court for capitalisation of annual income was far above the index which should have been adopted. As to the contention that the Land Acquisition Officer adopted a multiple of 20 learned Government Pleader submitted that the mere fact that such a faulty premise was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer is no ground to restrain the Government from pleading for the correct and reasonable multiplier to be fixed. In support of the contention, learned Government Pleader invited our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Mathai Paulose v. State of Kerala ( 1987 (2) KLT 207 ), 6. We too are of the view that merely because land acquisition officers adopted any particular index or multiplier for capitalising the annual income from the property, the Government are not debarred from contending that a lesser multiple should be adopted. A land acquisition officer might be considering the quantum of annual income from the land and then adopts a multiplier which he considers reasonable to fix up the proper market value of the land. Government cannot be pegged down to such a multiple. 7. Variation of the multiple used in capitalisation method is a regular happening in assessing land value since no rigid or fixed index has been provided for it. During the first half of the century the multiple followed was 20 years' purchase in order to fix up value for agricultural lands. Government cannot be pegged down to such a multiple. 7. Variation of the multiple used in capitalisation method is a regular happening in assessing land value since no rigid or fixed index has been provided for it. During the first half of the century the multiple followed was 20 years' purchase in order to fix up value for agricultural lands. The traditional view was that capitalised value should be linked with gilt edged securities. But with steep changes in the returns from investments such as National Savings Certificates, Unit Trust and other forms of securities as well as 'blue chipped' market investments commanding greater returns the traditional view got watered down. 8. In Union of India v. Smt. Shati Devi ( AIR 1983 SC 1190 ) it was pointed out that the number of years purchase has gradually decreased as the prevailing rate of interest realisable from safe investments has gradually increased "the higher the rate of interest, the lower the number of years' purchase". This method of valuation involves capitalising the net income that the property can fairly be expected to produce and the rate of capitalisation is the percentage of return of his investment which a willing buyer would expect from the property. In that case, a multiple of 15 was adopted for determining the capitalised value of a very large extent of agricultural land as for the year 1962-63. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadarappa ( AIR 1984 SC 774 ) the Supreme Court found that since the rate of return on investment was 8.25 per cent during the crucial years involved in that case, a person investing his capital in agricultural land would normally expect two to three per cent more. So the court found that a multiplier of 10 would be reasonable. However, as the State Government in that case offered 12 1/2 times, the Supreme Court accepted it. 9. In Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) ( AIR 1990 SC 731 ) the rental of the building was used as a basis. It was held that a multiple of 25 can be adopted as reasonable. But there is no precedent in which the value of agricultural land was assessed by using a multiplier of 20. Such a multiplier may be useful for a land covered by buildings rented out for commercial purposes. It was held that a multiple of 25 can be adopted as reasonable. But there is no precedent in which the value of agricultural land was assessed by using a multiplier of 20. Such a multiplier may be useful for a land covered by buildings rented out for commercial purposes. Supreme Court considered the same question in Kovappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. Stale of Kerala ( AIR 1991 SC 2027 ). It was pointed out that in valuing the market value of the acquired property which is agricultural land with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method. In the case of cardamom plantations the Supreme Court has found that 7 years multiplier is proper for fixing the land value on capitalisation method in K. A. A. Raja and others v. State of Kerala (1994 AIR SCW 2503). 10. The above decisions would thus indicate that different multiplies have been utilised for different types of land situated at different regions. Even the extent of land involved was given a bearing in fixing up the multiplier. Here the extent of land in each case does not exceed 0.3255 hectares. The produces from the land are coconuts, arecanuts and pepper. The year involved is 1978 as per the notification issued under S.4(1) of the Act. 11. We are of the view that the multiple of 15 adopted in Kovappathodi M. Ayisha Umma's case ( AIR 1991 SC 2027 ) can safely be followed here also. As the reference court fixed the multiplier at 10% we are not inclined to interfere. 12. But we cannot dispose of the appeals with the above finding. Learned counsel for the respondents made a plea for affording the benefits envisaged in the Act As the reference court passed its award on 24-8-1984, counsel for the claimants pleaded that the benefit covered by S.23(1A) may also be granted. True, the dictum laid down in Union of India v. Zora Singh ( 1992 (1) SCC 673 would help them to get it. But learned Government Pleader pointed out that the dictum in Zora Singh's case is doubted by the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1992 SC 1488 ). True, the dictum laid down in Union of India v. Zora Singh ( 1992 (1) SCC 673 would help them to get it. But learned Government Pleader pointed out that the dictum in Zora Singh's case is doubted by the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1992 SC 1488 ). As on today, the dictum laid down in Zora Singh's case stands and therefore, we are bound to follow it now. 13. We, therefore, direct the State to grant an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification (18-7-1978 in all cases except in L.A.A.No. 185/85 in which the date is 10-10-1978) till the date of award i.e. 5-4-1980. We also direct the solatium to be paid at 30% instead of 15% granted by the lower court. The rate of interest on the awarded sum shall be 9% from the date of taking possession of the land for a period of one year and 15% thereafter till the date of payment. Decrees will be drawn up in each cases accordingly. Appeals are disposed of as above.