M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate in this case. To start with, the appellant's learned Advocate has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in Jade Basappa v Assistant Commissioner and Land acquisition Officer, in which this Court had observed as follows:"the approach of the Courts while dealing with the case of an agriculturist, who has harvested his crop, is to average and round off the figure, the acceptance always being on a little higher side rather than on the lower side. The object has not been to end up with the State paying more money, but to take note of the fact that whatever amount that the landowner seeks is a one-time compensation, the computation of which must never be grudgingly done because even a generous compensation is more than offset by the real land value in the hands of the acquirer and that consequently the lands have always a tremendous potential both for actual financial yield and capital appreciation". He submits that progressively, the Courts have been taking the view that in cases of acquisition, antiquated approaches have led to much injustice in so far as where the lands are relatively small and where the capacity of the agriculturist to produce cogent and concrete evidence in the conventional sense is limited, that in the long run the agriculturist ends up with so small an amount that it is hardly investible not can he find the capital or the nucleus for future survival. This is an aspect of the matter undoubtedly which requires serious re-examination and on the basis of which, to my mind, while reviewing orders passed in cases of compensation the superior Courts have to adopt a more realistic approach to the entire case. The appellant's learned Advocate has basically submitted that one safe standard which the Court can adopt is to go by the case put forward by the state representative at the time when the evidence was led. He submits that even if the Court were to discount the claim made by the land owner who may have a tendency to pitch his case higher than necessary, that the Court should never allow the figures to come below what the respondents themselves accept. He submits that even if the Court were to discount the claim made by the land owner who may have a tendency to pitch his case higher than necessary, that the Court should never allow the figures to come below what the respondents themselves accept. This is an aspect of the matter which does require serious consideration because I do concede that the appellant's learned advocate is justified when he points out that the State is represented by the learned Government Advocate before the trial Court who in turn has the benefit of obtaining the necessary instructions from the concerned Officers who are aware of the exact potential of the land, who are aware of its situation, who have knowledge of such factors as the real yield and above all, the prevailing prices. It is on the basis of these factors that the learned Government Advocate is in a position to confront the claimant in cross-examination with what in fact are the correct figures. These figures would however reflect what to my mind is the realistic basis on which a Court may proceed even though one must always take into account the fact that the department will undoubtedly try to keep the compensation within the lowest possible limits and therefore, in a given instance if there is better evidence from the other side undoubtedly the Court will discard these figures. ( 2 ) AT this stage, it is necessary for me to record that the appellant who had lost approximately 3. 40 acres of land had claimed that the yield from the land was 7 to 8 quintals per acre in his evidence and in cross-examination, the case put to him was that the yield was only 5 to 6 quintals per acre. Again, certain figures from the A. P. M. C. had been produced. The appellant had contended that the price range was Rs. 300/- to rs. 400/- per quintal whereas the case put to him by the learned government Advocate in cross-examination was that it would work out to Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal. The learned district Judge has taken the lower of the two figures whereas the appellant's learned Advocate submits before me that a benevolent approach ought to have been adopted and the higher of the two figures ought to have been taken. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal. The learned district Judge has taken the lower of the two figures whereas the appellant's learned Advocate submits before me that a benevolent approach ought to have been adopted and the higher of the two figures ought to have been taken. He does not dispute the fact that 40% fixed towards cost of cultivation is correct and if one were to take the yield at Rs. 250/- per quintal and the quantum at 6 quintals instead of 5, that the compensation would work out to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,000/- per acre to Rs. 6,000/- per acre and it is with regard to this aspect of the matter that this appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Advocate has defended the orderand it is her submission that it is well-settled law that the party claiming enhancement of compensation must satisfy the Court through cogent and concrete evidence that the enhanced amount claimed is fully justified on the basis of the principles applicable to such cases. She seriously contested the correctness of the argument that if the State itself put forward the case that the price would be anywhere between Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal and that the yield would be only between 5 to 6 quintals per acre, that these figures are the lowest possible for purposes of awarding compensation. It is her submission that when the correctness of the figures put forward by the claimant are disputed that even if some alternate figures are suggested that these are no barometer for purposes of the ultimate fixation of compensation because in law the onus lies on the claimant to justify any higher award of compensation. ( 4 ) IN this regard, one needs to view the matter very clearlyand in the real background of rural India regardless of the alleged avariciousness or ignorance attributed to the agriculturist or the landowner, that it is the onus of the State acting through the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the fair compensation in the first instance. ( 4 ) IN this regard, one needs to view the matter very clearlyand in the real background of rural India regardless of the alleged avariciousness or ignorance attributed to the agriculturist or the landowner, that it is the onus of the State acting through the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the fair compensation in the first instance. Though the law assumes that the L. A. O. will act correctly, the law also makes provision for revision of the figure awarded, by the Court, and experience has shown that in almost every case, the Courts had even required to intervene by stepping up the compensation. It is true that if the original awarded amount is disputed that the onus lies on the claimant and that on such basic issues as the question as to how much grain or other agricultural produce a particular piece of land yielded in a particular year is concerned, that it is the landowner who is the best person to testify. If one were to take note of the fact that for purposes of obtaining some more money that there would be a natural tendency to exaggerate, a Court will go by the prevailing standards and figures and as far as these are concerned, if independent evidence is not forthcoming then some reliance of a considerable degree will have to be placed on the figures which the State comes out with. One needs to take note of the fact also that the variable factors such as the quality of the land, type of cultivation, location of the land, whether conditions, availability of various inputs including water etc. , are all factors which differ from region to region and from season to season and it is therefore that when the figures are put forward by the learned Government Advocate in cross-examination on the basis of instructions from the Officers who are in the know of all these factors, that under no circumstances would a Court go below those figures. To my mind, this is a safe principle and the appellant's learned advocate is justified in his submission that if his client's figures are to be discarded that those put forward on behalf of the State must be accepted. ( 5 ) I have already indicated that on this basis, thecompensation would work out to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. To my mind, this is a safe principle and the appellant's learned advocate is justified in his submission that if his client's figures are to be discarded that those put forward on behalf of the State must be accepted. ( 5 ) I have already indicated that on this basis, thecompensation would work out to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. However, since the figures put forward to the appellant in cross-examination were variable, one would have to make some degree of allowance and having regard to the over all complexion of the record and the facts of the case, to my mind, a figure of Rs. 8,000/- per acre would be the fair and correct. ( 6 ) THE order of the lower Court is accordingly varied in so far as the rate of compensation shall be Rs. 8,000/- per acre. The appellant shall accordingly be entitled to an enhanced amount according to the normal computation. The respondents shall calculate the enhanced amount in terms of the same and pay the sum to the appellant within a period of three months from today. ( 7 ) THE appeal accordingly succeeds and the same stands disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .