P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) IN accordance with the provision in Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'act') the Land acquisition Officer, Rengali and Bhimkund irrigation Project has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 16/4/1985 in l. A. Misc Case No 378 of 1984 of the court of Subordinate Judge, Deogarh After receipt of the notice from this Court though the claimants/respondents entered appearance but they did not file cross objection challenging any of the findings in the impugned award and at the time of hearing they have been set ex parte ( 2 ) THE fact in substance is that Ac 3 90 decimals of land belonging to the respondents submerged in the Rengah Dam Project and in that respect Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was made on 6/3/1980 followed by declaration No 15110 dated 3/3/1983 published in the Orissa Gazette No 263 dated 4/3/1983 The appellant determined the compensation for the land with solatium at Rs 18,014 20 paise Respondents received the same on protest and claimed higher compensation not only for the landed properties but also for the submerged trees and also claimed cost of rehabilitation It is noted in their objection by the respondents that they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs 16,000/ per acre dunng the course of inquiry two witnesses were examined by the respondents which included respondent No. 1 as P. W. 1 and a co-villager as p. W. 2 No evidence was adduced by the appellant Learned Subordinate Judge on perusal of the valuation statement, a cyclostyled copy of which was available on record found the manner in which value per acre was determined by the appellant So without assessing the unchallenged evidence of P Ws 1 and 2, learned subordinate Judge accepted the valuation statement and determined the compensation by adopting 20 years multiplier instead of 16 years which was adopted by the appellant Learned subordinate Judge, however, declined to award any compensation for alleged submerged trees in the absence of any assessment in that respect by the appellant and also declined to award compensation i. e. the cost of rehabili tation because of lack of evidence in that respect The impugned award was passed accordingly ( 3 ) DURING the course of hearing, learned additional Standing Counsel argues that now it is the settled position of law for computation by adopting 16 years multiplier on the net annual yield and not 20 years multiplier In that respect, he refers to the case of The Executive Director v Sarat Chandra Bisor and an other Accordingly, he argues that the deter mination of the valuation by the appellant should have been upheld by learned Subordinate Judge without enhancing the amount of compensation by adopting 20 years multiplier no other argument is advanced in challenging the impugned award In that case the Apex court have upheld the decision of a Division bench of this Court reported in Land Acquisition Zone Officer v Damburudharpradhan and held that in a case of determining the capitalised value, the method of adopting 16 years multiplier on the net annual income of the agricultural land in Onssa is a reasonable view on a reference to AIR 1991 Orissa 271, it is seen that various reported decisions of the apex Court and this Court were referred to including the cases of State of Orissa v bibhuti Bhusan Singh, and the State of West bengal v Shyampad, which two decisions were relied upon by learned Subordinate Judge to adopt 20 multiplier The Division Bench took note of the different multiplier adopted in all the referred cases and after analysis of the principle relating to adopting number of multiplier determined it at 16 times of the net annual yield It is seen from the above noted citation that while determining the valuation by adopting the multiplier of the net annual income, it is not necessary to adopt any number of multiplier, be it 16 or 20 or any other number unless the Court assigns specific reason for adopting such number for multification It may be noted that such an exercise when neces sary is to determine value of the land on the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the act ( 4 ) REFERRING to the case at hand it is already noted that the claimants/respondents have been set ex parte. They have also preferred no cross-objection against any of the findings nor any appeal challenging the said award. But this Court being hearing a First appeal is also a court of fact and therefore it is necesary to see if the factual findings in the impugned award is based on proper reference and assessment of evidence when the same is being challenged by the appellant ( 5 ) IT reveals from the impugned award that from out of the acquired land, paddy cultivable land belonged to three categories and the 'goda' variety of land also belonged to three categories Accordingly, as noted in the impugned award, Class-I, II and III categories of paddy land were to the extent of Ac. 1. 82 dec. , ac 0. 66 dec. , and Ac. 1. 08 dec. respectively. Unchallengedly evidence from the side of the claimants/respondents reveals that harvest from such paddy land was respectively 8, 6 and 4 Pudugs (Pudug is an unit of determining the quantity of food grains not by weighment but by measurment.) ( 6 ) THE above unchallenged evidence of p Ws 1 and 2 is also supported with the unchallenged evidence that the price per pudug of paddy was Rs 200/ -. Such evidence of pws 1 and 2 was not at all referred to by learned Subordinate Judge while determining the annual net income and consequently the amount of compensation. It is seen from the valuation statement which was referred to by learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant did not assess the annual yield and the net income thereof so far as the acquired land was concerned On the other hand, basing upon the information from the Bureau of Statistics relating to the average annual yield the appellant calculated and determined the compensation by applying 16 years multiplier. The method adopted by the appellant cannot be said to be proper when there is no evidence tendered from his side to show that he conducted an inquiry in accordance with provision under Section 11 of the Act for ascertainment of the net annual yield in the absence of any sale statistics for determination of the compensation. Be that as it may, learned subordinate Judge also committed the same mistake in not referring to the unchallenged evidence of the respondents relating to the annual yield and the net income therefrom. Be that as it may, learned subordinate Judge also committed the same mistake in not referring to the unchallenged evidence of the respondents relating to the annual yield and the net income therefrom. He could not have adopted the average income on the basis of the materials available from the Bureau of statistics when positive evidence was available to him relating to the annual yield from the acquired land so far as it relates to the paddy land. During the course of hearing, an arithmetical calculation being made in that respect, it is seen that even adopting the 16 years multiplier on the aforesaid annual yield and the net income thereof, the quantum of compen sation cannot be less than what has been awarded in the impugned award. In spite of that, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contends that the appellant desires a true and proper calculation for determination of the compensation. The method of calculation being a matter of finding on fact and therefore appealable, he prays for a remand. He also states that valuation of paddy per pudug as stated by the P Ws 1 and 2 is also subject to verification by referring to government rate at the relevant time. ( 7 ) IT is followed from the aforesaid argument that the appellant desires a proper and correct assessment and determination of compensation. So far as the yield from the paddy land is concerned, evidence adduced by the respondents has remained unchallenged so far as the determination of market price of the three categories of 'goda' land is concerned, in that respect respondents did not adduce any evidence in challenging the valuation determined by the appellant Thus, learned subordinate Judge was not proper in re-determining price of such land. Appellant does not dispute relating to grant of other statutory benefits as provided in Sections 23 and 28 of the act. Appellant only wants to adduce evidence to show the market rate of paddy per pudug by the date of Notification under Section 4 (1)of the Act. As noted above, in that respect, respondents have already adduced evidence. Since a sense of fairness is available in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he prays for a remand, this Court finds no reason not to accept that contention. As noted above, in that respect, respondents have already adduced evidence. Since a sense of fairness is available in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he prays for a remand, this Court finds no reason not to accept that contention. At the same time, this Court also is conscious of the oldness of the litigation but that can be remedied by imparting direction for expeditious disposal of the reference. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the contention of the appllant is considered and accepted for a remand. The impugned award of learned Subordinate Judge being without reference to the evidence of the respondents, and without explaining any reason for adopting 20 years multiplier is found to be non-sustainable and accordingly set aside. Since the matter is pretty old, the lower court shall do well to dispose of this reference within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the LCR along with a copy of this judgment. The appellant shall deposit the cost of a special messenger to serve the notice, on the respondents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the LCR in that Court. The appellant also shall appear in the lower Court on 15/11/2000 by which date it is expected that LCR is received in the court below. In that respect Registry of the court is directed to see due compliance of this order. ( 9 ) ON receipt of the record on remand the lower Court shall allow the appellant to adduce evidence in support of the market price of the paddy per pudug. Rebuttal evidence, if any, adduced by the respondents in that connection may also be accepted and the quantum of compensation be accordingly decided on the basis of evidence on record. Learned subordinate Judge (presently Civil Judge (Sr. Division)) shall guard against undue delay and liberal adjournment. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons indicated above, the impugned award is set aside and the reference is remanded for disposal in accordance with law and directions and observations made in this judgment. No cost. Hearing fee be assessed at ex parte scale. Appeal allowed. Matter remanded.