H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise from the common judgment and award dated 29th June, 1996 delivered by the II Additional District Judge (Mr. V. K. Dwarakanath), Gulbarga in Land Acquisition Case Appeal Nos. 45, 46, 83, 84, 85, 86 of 1992 and 1 to 3 of 1993 which had been filed from the common judgment dated 2-1-1992 delivered by the Additional Civil judge (Mr. P. G. Kulkarni), Gulbarga, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 1989. ( 2 ) FROM the common judgment delivered by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, above land acquisition cases the said appeals have been allowed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Gulbarga with costs. ( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it will be appropriate to give the following chart which indicates the number of M. S. A. , L. A. C. A. and L. A. C. , survey number and the extent of land involved in each case and the nature of land: ( 21 ) IN the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, supra, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated the same principle. In paragraph 12 of the said report, their Lordships observed as under:"during the imperial days, investment in gilt-edged securities was looked upon as the only safe form of investment. But after the attainment of independence the country has taken long strides in the growth of commerce and trade. Due to growth of industries both in the public, as well as in the private sector, investment of capital in such industries, if not any more secure, have come into the law, merchant and such other alternative available securities have attracted persons who are inclined to invest rather than gilt-edged securities alone, apart from making fixed deposits in the scheduled banks. This accounts for the variation of the proper multiple to be adopted. The line of inquiry in such cases must therefore be: What was the prevailing rate of interest on long term deposits with scheduled banks or in the public or private sector". (emphasis supplied) ( 22 ) IN paragraph 21 of the said report, their Lordships further observed as under:"in the premises when the rate of return on investment was 8. The line of inquiry in such cases must therefore be: What was the prevailing rate of interest on long term deposits with scheduled banks or in the public or private sector". (emphasis supplied) ( 22 ) IN paragraph 21 of the said report, their Lordships further observed as under:"in the premises when the rate of return on investment was 8. 25% in the years 1971 and 1972, a person investing his capital in agricultural lands would ordinarily expect 2% to 3% more than what he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other forms of safe investment and therefore the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalisation could not in any event exceed "ten". " ( 23 ) NO doubt, in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, referred to above, it was contended that proper multiplier to be applied would be 121/2 in computation of the capitalised value of the land in the case having regard to the rate of return at 8% at the relevant time i. e. , on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the Court held that it must be held that multiplier 121/2 should be applied in computation of the value of the land. It may be mentioned here that the case was considered in the context of the acquisition notification issued in 1971 and 1972. ( 24 ) THESE cases bring out the basic principle. That in order to determine the proper multiplier what was the prevailing rate of interest on long term deposits during the relevant year. The learned Counsel for the appellants has not shown the prevailing rate of interest in 1983 was less than 10%, and as such the investor would have expected at least 10% of the annual net income of his investment. The decision in the case of state of Haryana, supra, the Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Sri K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ. , observed as under:"under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier". For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier". ( 25 ) IT may be mentioned here that this was also a case in which the land was acquired vide the notification dated 22nd June, 1974 and it was not a case of acquisition in 1983. While in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, supra, the Bench consisting of the Hon'ble K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ. , the Court after taking note of its earlier decision in the case of Special Land Acquisition officer, supra, opined that while disposing of the appeals in the above mentioned case, this Court held that multiplier of 10 years would be the proper method in determining the total market value by following the method of capitalisation as just and reasonable and the Court held that multiplier of 10 will be appropriate. Later case viz. , in the case of State of Gujarat, supra, as well the Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Sri K. Ramaswamy and Sri G. T. Nanavati, JJ. , have observed that proper multiplier should be 10 years period as settled by several judgments of this court. Following the basic principle of law, it is necessary in order to determine the proper multiplier and in respect thereof the enquiry has got to be made as to what %, i. e. , percentage of net income of yield one would expect from the money to be invested by him, and it will depend as to on what rate of interest one will earn or would have earned of on safe deposit at relevant time as no one expect net return from his investment lesser than the higher rate of interest on investment on safe long term deposit. In my opinion, whether multiplier 10 will be the proper multiplier or 12 or more will be the proper multiplier it will depend upon the enquiry as to what interest the investor may earn every year on the money invested by him in securities or in land with reference to the year in which the land was/is acquired and if the rate of interest is higher, multiplier to be applied will be lower in number of years. Where the interest earned on securities is on higher rate, less number of years will furnish a proper multiplier and where it is shown that lower the rate of interest on securities is available at the relevant time viz. , the time of acquisition more number of years or maximum number of years will provide the multiplier. We cannot with certainty say that with reference to every year or every period there shall be only one multiplier. The multiplier will depend upon only on the rate of interest which the investor may earn every year on safe security deposits whether run by the nationalised banks or private persons. The decision in the case of Union of India, supra, delivered in October 1993. Their Lordships pointed out that a return of 10% per annum on safe investment in 1983 was almost assured and a higher return of the order of 10% is usually anticipated. This has to be read with reference to 1983. When a return of 10% is expected and the net annual income from the agricultural land is to be deemed to be 10% of the net annual income it means as mentioned earlier that if a person is going to get an income of Rs. 10/- per year from his investment in the land, then he will invest for it Rs. 100/ -. It means the multiplier of 10 with reference to the acquisition period of the land in the present case which had been made in November 1983 has been proper and was rightly applied for. No doubt, one discrepancy, I find in the judgment and award viz. , that in November 1983 when acquisition was made and the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was published the market value or market rate of Toor' in november 1983 has been Rs. 460/- per quintal and 40% of gross yield was to be deducted towards the cultivation charges/expenses which may come to Rs. 184/ -. In other words Rs. 460-00 - Rs. 184-00 = Rs. 276-00 is the net income per quintal. Thus, for three quintals which the average production per acre the net income will come to Rs. 828-00 per year per acre and applying the multiplier of 10 the market value will come to Rs. 8,280/- per acre of dry land. 184/ -. In other words Rs. 460-00 - Rs. 184-00 = Rs. 276-00 is the net income per quintal. Thus, for three quintals which the average production per acre the net income will come to Rs. 828-00 per year per acre and applying the multiplier of 10 the market value will come to Rs. 8,280/- per acre of dry land. Even if this formula is applied, the lower appellate Court took the minimum price of one quintal of Toor to be as rs. 456/- in November 1983 then after deduction of cultivation expenses the net income had been arrived by it to be Rs. 274/- per quintal and for three quintals, which is the average yield the net value has been assessed at Rs. 822-00 per year and after applying multiplier 10 the lower appellate Court has held that the annual net income would come to Rs. 8,220/ -. Once the lower Appellate Court arrived the net annual income from or value of dry land to be Rs. 8,220/- on what basis and for what reason it has reduced to figure Rs. 8,000/- is not clear. In such cases, the lower Appellate Court should at least have held that in every circumstance the appellants were entitled to the compensation of Rs. 8,220/- for the dry land and with respect to the wetland by applying this formula the net annual income from the irrigated bagayat land is to be one and half times more than that of dry land, the lower Appellate Court ought to have held that the appellants-claimants were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,330/- per acre of wetland and not Rs. 12,000/ -. The lower Appellate Court has not given any reason for reducing the amount from 8,220/- per acre to Rs. 8,000/- per acre of dry land and from rs. 12,330/- per acre to Rs. 12,000/- per acre of wetland. Hence, the judgment and award of the lower Appellate Court to this extent needs modification. That as market rate of Toor was Rs. 460/- per quintal in november 1983, the month in which notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published. The net yield per year per acre would be Rs. 460/- minus 40% cultivation charges i. e. , minus rs. 184/- i. e. , Rs. 276/- multiplied by per acre yield of three (quintals) would be Rs. 460/- per quintal in november 1983, the month in which notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published. The net yield per year per acre would be Rs. 460/- minus 40% cultivation charges i. e. , minus rs. 184/- i. e. , Rs. 276/- multiplied by per acre yield of three (quintals) would be Rs. 276/- x 3 i. e. , Rs. 828/- per year. The per year net income from per acre dry land thus would be Rs. 828/- which is to be multiplied by ten and it would be Rs. 8,280/- as per acre market value of dry land, and one and one half times more of value of dry land will be the net value of irrigated land i. e. , Rs. 12,420/- per acre. ( 26 ) THUS considered, the claimant-appellants would be entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre for dry land, while with respect to irrigated bagayat land the claimants-appellants would be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,420/- per acre. ( 27 ) THUS, considered the above Miscellaneous Second Appeals, as such, are hereby allowed. ( 28 ) IT is ordered that the appellant-claimant in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 560 of 1998 arising from L. A. C. A. No. 85 of 1992 and L. A. C. No. 35 of 1989 is entitled to the compensation for Survey No. 49 measuring 2 acres which is an irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 12,420/- per acre as market value and in respect of the remaining land, i. e. , Survey No. 49 measuring 5 acres 38 guntas, which is a dry land, the aforesaid claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre as market value. ( 29 ) IN respect of M. S. A. No. 561 of 1998 arising from L. A. C. A. No. 86 of 1992 and L. A. C. No. 33 of 1989 with regard to Survey No. 70/d1 measuring 3 acres which is an irrigated bagayat land, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,420/- per acre, while in respect of other land, Survey No. 707d1 measuring 9 acres 6 guntas, which is a dry land, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre as market value. 12,420/- per acre, while in respect of other land, Survey No. 707d1 measuring 9 acres 6 guntas, which is a dry land, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre as market value. ( 30 ) SIMILARLY in M. S. A. No. 562 of 1998 arising from L. A. C. A. No. 3 of 1993 (L. A. C. No. 30 of 1989) with respect to Survey No. 70/b3, 70/5 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas, which is an irrigated wetland, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,420/- per acre and in respect of the remaining dry lands, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre as market value. ( 31 ) THAT similarly claimant-appellant in M. S. A. No. 563 of 1998 arising out of L. A. C. Appeal No. 83 of 1992 and L. A. C. No. 29 of 1989 will get compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,420/- per acre for Survey No. 707a4 area 4 acres which is wetland, and in respect of his other land which is dry land the claimant-appellant is entitled to be awarded and given compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre. ( 32 ) AS regards M. S. A. Nos. 557, 558, 559 of 1998 arising from L. A. C. Case Nos. 31, 34, 36 of 1989 which are in respect of and covered by the dry lands, the claimants-appellants are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,280/- per acre as market value. ( 33 ) ALL the claimants-appellants will also be entitled to be paid additional market value at 12% per annum from the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of award or taking possession of the lands whichever is earlier as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act and they shall also be entitled to the other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. ( 34 ) THUS, all the Miscellaneous Second Appeals are partly allowed as above with costs and the judgment and awards delivered by the lower Appellate Court in respect of claimants-appellants in above mentioned Miscellaneous Second Appeals are modified to the extent as has been indicated above. --- *** --- .