Judgment :- Abdul Hadi. J. All these four land acquisition first appeals are by the Government, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Vembakottai Reservoir Project Scheme, Unit No.I, Srivilliputhur being the actual appellant in all the appeals. 2. A.S.No.122 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No.39 of 1986, A.S.No.123 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No.40 of 1986, A.S. No.124 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987 and A.S. No.125 of 1988 arises out of L.A.O.P. No.41 of 1986. 3. The claimants in all these L.A.O.Ps. are clearly related and the respective lands acquired are also in the same area. The date of the notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is also same in all the cases it being 8. 1983. Further, in all these four cases, though the award was passed on 17. 1985, possession of the acquired lands was taken on 11. 1983 itself. As per the decision of the court below, all these acquires lands form part of "Thope’ ‘mainly having guava trees and coconut trees. The lands acquired in all the four cases are in Panaiyadipatti, Sattur Taluk. The extent of the lands acquired are 61 cents in L.A.O.P. No.39 of 1986, 1.16 acres in L.A.O.P. No.40 of 1986, 76 cents in L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987 and 32 cents in L.A.O.P. No.41 of 1986, and the said lands were acquired for the formation of canal under the Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme and the said canal runs through a portion of the abovesaid thope lands and the said portion alone was acquired in all these four cases. To the north and south of the said portion, still a thope exists. In other words the said portion was severed from the rest of the thope area and severance compensation also has been awarded. No doubt in one of the above four cases, viz., in the land acquired in L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987, the claim by the appellant is that there were no trees, though the finding of the court below is that there were trees in the said land also and it was also a thope. 4. In the common order of the court below in all the abovesaid L.A.O.Ps. method adopted for assessing the market value is capitalisation method since the lands are thope lands i.e., orchard lands or lands where fruit-bearing trees were there. 4. In the common order of the court below in all the abovesaid L.A.O.Ps. method adopted for assessing the market value is capitalisation method since the lands are thope lands i.e., orchard lands or lands where fruit-bearing trees were there. In other words, the court below computed the annual income from those trees and adopting the multiplier of 20 to the said income has arrived at the market value. 5. There is nodispute in principlesas to the abovesaid method adopted. It is also settled law that in the case of such orchards, such a method is the best method to arrive at the market value thereof. It was also so held in S.Byravan. Petitioner/ Arbitrator v. R. Thirumalaisamy Reddiar and others, (1 990)2 L. W. 681 by one of us (AR. Lakshmanan, J.) and in a number of other decisions of the Supreme Court, like State of Madras v. Joseph. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2463: (1973)2 S.C.C. 504 : (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 415: 1973 S.C.D. 945. But the learned Additional Government Pleader makes only the following two submissions: The abovesaid multiplier adopted by the court below should be reduced to seven years or at least to 15 years. He relies on K.A.A. Raja v. State of Kerala, (1994)5 S. C. C. 138. in support of his submission for the abovesaid 7 years multiplier. The abovesaid 15 years multiplier is claimed on the ground that guava trees which are in the abovesaid lands were five year old trees on the relevant date and hence the claimants having already reaped yield for five years out of the abovesaid 20 years, the remaining 15 years alone must be taken as the multiplier to be adopted. Here it must be noted that a major part of trees are only guava trees in the lands in question and presumably on that ground there was no separate submission, with reference to coconut trees, by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader also drew our attention to Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Yamanappa B. Chalwadi, (1994)3 S. C. C. 323, wherein ten years multiplier was adopted. Incidentally, learned Additional Government Pleader also submits that the value of each year’s income which were multiplied 20 times as stated above, should also be reduced. 6. Learned Additional Government Pleader also drew our attention to Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Yamanappa B. Chalwadi, (1994)3 S. C. C. 323, wherein ten years multiplier was adopted. Incidentally, learned Additional Government Pleader also submits that the value of each year’s income which were multiplied 20 times as stated above, should also be reduced. With reference to the abovesaid guava trees, the court below found that they would fetch 120 kilograms of guava per year and the value of each kilogram was Rs.2. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the abovesaid rate of 120 kilograms per year should be reduced. 7. The second submission relates only to the land covered under the abovesaid L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987. With reference to the said land, he contends that the court below erred in holding that the land also was a thope land, having trees, and according to him, the court below ought to have held that it did not have any trees and accordingly ought to have fixed the compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for all the claimants reiterates that the decision of the court below is correct with reference to both the abovesaid submissions of learned Additional Government Pleader. He also relies on the above referred to State of Madras v. Joseph, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2463: (1973)2 S.C.C. 504 : (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 415: 1973 S.C.D. 945 and State of West Bengal v. Shyampada, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1723, for contending that the abovesaid multiplier of 20 adopted by the court below is correct. He also drew our attention to the relevant evidence showing that in the land covered under L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987, there were trees just as in the other lands. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and we are unable to accept the submissions of learned Additional Government Pleader for the following reasons: K.A.A. Raja v. State of Kerala, (1994)5 S.C.C. 138 , relied on by learned Additional Government Pleader will have no application to the present case since it was a case of cardamom lands. Cardamom crop is a plantation crop and that cannot be equated with the trees in an orchard, as in the present case. Cardamom crop is a plantation crop and that cannot be equated with the trees in an orchard, as in the present case. Further, even there, the relevant observation of the Supreme Court is as follows: "The court equally has duty, on an overall consideration of the fact and circumstances available in the particular case on hand, while determining the number of trees, their ages, the yield and the price fetched or likely to fetch in the open market should apply appropriate evidence as to multiplier adduced by either party, we take seven years’ multiplier for purpose of capitalisation of net income, though income may vary depending on evidence." 10. Likewise Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Yamanappa B. Chalwadi, (1994)3 S. C C. 323, also will not apply to the present case since the said decision of the Supreme Court related to punja land where ordinary agricultural crops were raised. No doubt, on the facts and circumstances of the said case ten years multiplier was adopted. But, the present case, being a case of orchard, in our view State of Madras v. Joseph, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2463: (1973)2 S.C.C. 504 : (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 415: 1973 S.C.D. 945, will have application since that case actually related to orchard. There, the Supreme Court held in the case of coconut and orange thope that capitalisation of the net income of 20 years’ purchase was a fair method for arriving at the market value. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court therein is as follows: "In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer found in his award that all the fruit-bearing trees will yield for more than 20 years. That was the reason which weighed with him to capitalise the net income of these thopes at 20 years’ purchase to find out their market value. We do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge and the High Court went wrong in accepting this estimate of the average yielding life of coconut and orange trees. Therefore, we do not think that the capitalisation of the net yield from these thopes at 20’ years purchase was not a fair method to arrive at the market value of these thopes. We are not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out the market value of the thopes was, in the circumstances in any way unreasonable.“ 11. We are not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out the market value of the thopes was, in the circumstances in any way unreasonable.“ 11. No doubt in State of West Bengal v. Shyampada, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1723, also 20 years’ multiplier was adopted with reference to a land where sabai grass was grown. The said decision does not relate to orchard. Anyway, as already pointed out with reference to orchard, the Supreme Court has adopted 20 years’ purchase in the abovesaid State of Madras v. Joseph. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2463: (1973)2 S.C.C. 504 : (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 415: 1913 S.C.D. 945. 12. Now, coming to the evidence in the present case, as also pointed out by the Court below in paragraph 17 of its common order, we find that R.W.I the Assistant Director of Horticulture Dindigul, examined on behalf of the Government admitted that guava trees would begin to yield from the third year and from the 5th year it would yield very well for 20 years and that in the lands in question guava trees were in good condition. Further the same person has filed three reports in relation to the abovesaid lands, viz., Ex.B-2 dated 10. 1983, Ex.B-3 dated 23. 1984 and Ex.B-1, dated 7. 1984. In Ex.B-2 the earlier report, inter alia, he has stated that the orchard in all the above cases were very well maintained. Likewise in his second report in Ex.B-3 also, he has made the following observations: ”Guava: The soil is highly fertile and suitable for guava orchard. The orchard was properly laid out and proper spacing was adopted. Spacing of 5 x 5 metre was adopted as per the departmental recommendation. The stand of the trees were uniform. The trees were growing very vigorously. The lands were suitable for guava orchard. The market is also near for marketing the produce. The maintenance of orchard was very good. The orchard was irrigated by pumpsets. It is well maintained good orchard. In this orchard the trees are very good variety of Lucknow-49 well developed.“ Likewise in Ex.B-1 report also, his observation is as follows: ”The age of the guava trees mainly depends upon its maintenance. Properly maintained guava trees can survive upto 40 years. If maintenance is poor, premature mortality is also occurred. It is well maintained good orchard. In this orchard the trees are very good variety of Lucknow-49 well developed.“ Likewise in Ex.B-1 report also, his observation is as follows: ”The age of the guava trees mainly depends upon its maintenance. Properly maintained guava trees can survive upto 40 years. If maintenance is poor, premature mortality is also occurred. Anyhow the case of the guava trees is about 30 years as per the book, South Indian Horticulture by K.G.Naik page No.450. The economic bearing period of guava is 20 years and one tree will give 120 kgs. of fruit if it is properly maintained as per the Bulletin No.7 on guava by Horticultural Research Station, Agricultural University, Periakulam...... Guava trees start bearing on 3rd year onwards and continue to give yield for 20 to 25 years. In some places, if maintenance is good the guava will give yield upto 30 years.‘ ‘[Italics supplied] In the face of the abovesaid evidence there is no difficulty in rejecting the above referred to first submission of learned Additional Government Pleader and there is also no scope for accepting his argument that regarding the abovesaid rate of yield, viz., 120 Kilograms per year, the rate should be reduced. In the light of the abovesaid evidence the contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that P.W.1 has deposed that he has not maintained accounts regarding the income secured from the thope and that the income from the thope cannot be taken on the basis of the abovesaid rate of 120 kilograms per year in respect of guava trees cannot also be accepted. 13. The abovesaid second submission of learned Additional Government Pleader also has no merit. As already stated, the lands in all the abovesaid four cases were taken possession by the Government as early as 11. 1983 though the award was passed much later, on 17. 1983. The survey numbers of the lands acquired in L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987 are 1027/ 2B, 1027/3B and 1031/1B and the total extent thereof is 76 cents. With reference to these lands, the Commissioner’s report Ex.C-4 says thus: In other words the abovesaid lands acquired in L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987 are only part of an orchard. To the south of the said part, guava thope was found by the Commissioner, consisting of guava trees of the same age and being in the same row. With reference to these lands, the Commissioner’s report Ex.C-4 says thus: In other words the abovesaid lands acquired in L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987 are only part of an orchard. To the south of the said part, guava thope was found by the Commissioner, consisting of guava trees of the same age and being in the same row. Therefore, the inference that could be drawn is that even in that part, same kinds of trees were there, in the same order. Apart from the abovesaid inference that could be drawn, it should be noted that to this Commissioner’s report Ex.C-4 there was no objection filed by the Government nor the Government sought for cross examination of the Commissioner in relation to the abovesaid Ex.C-4. Therefore, it has necessarily to be held that the said part also contained similar trees as found in the northern and southern sides of the said apart. Further, while cross-examining C.W.1, the suggestion made also shows that there many guava and coconut trees in the said lands covered under L.A.O.P. No.71 of 1987. The following answer given to the abovesaid suggestion makes it clear. Therefore, there is no merit in either of the abovesaid two submissions of learned Additional Government Pleader. 14. No doubt, learned counsel for the claimants fairly points out that the court below erred in one respect with reference to the rate of 12% per annum granted under Sec.23 (1A) of the Act, Sec.23(1A) speaks of grant of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of Sec.4(l) notification to the date of award or date of taking possession of the acquired land whichever is earlier. While granting this, the court below has granted the abovesaid rate of 12% per annum on the entire compensation, while it ought to have granted as per the said provision only on the market value arrived at, for the period beginning from 8. 1983, the date of Sec.4(1) notification till 11. 1983, the date of taking possession of the acquired land. Therefore, only to this small extent, the appeals have to be allowed. 15. Accordingly the appeals are allowed only to the extent indicated above, and in other respects, they are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.