B. SUBHAGHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal and cross-objections arise under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) AGRICULTURAL land of Ac. 4. 00 gts. in survey No. 110 of Suraram, hamlet of gullakota village of Luxettipet Mandal of adilabad District situated on the main road leading to Luxettipet-Mancherial just 5 kilometres away from Luxettipet town has been acquired for providing house-sites to the poor. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was gazetted on 27-2-1984. After making enquiry, the Land Acquisition officer had passed Award on 21-9-1984 fixing the market value for the acquired land at Rs. 6,500. 00 per acre. Dissatisfied with the quantum so fixed, the claimants had sought far reference under Section 18 of the act for enhancement of compensation. On such a reference being made, the civil court, after conducting enquiry, had refixed the market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 40,000. 00 per acre. The claimants had claimed more than that i. e. , rs. 60,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the enhancement of Rs. 40,000. 00per acre, the state had filed the appeal and contending that the quantum is low, the claimants had filed cross-objections, of course, limiting their claim to Rs. 55,000. 00 per acre. ( 3 ) WE have heard both the learned government Pleader for Appeals as also the learned Counsel for the claimants/cross- objectors. We have perused the evidence once again and appreciated the same. ( 4 ) EXS. B-1 to B-3 are certified copies of pahani patriks showing the extents of land and crops raised therein like Mirchi, Jowar etc. , Ex. B-4 is the certificate issued by the agricultural Officer-R. W. 5 regarding the yield per acre. Exs. B-5 and B-6 proved by r. Ws. 2 and 4 are the certificates regarding the rates for the agricultural commodities in the transactions held in the market committees. Insofar as the Referring Officer is concerned, there is no rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the claimants excepting marking Exs. A-1 to A-7, which are the notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, statements of the claimants, panchanama of taking possession, award proceedings, claim petitions and Notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. As such, there is nothing to impeach the figure of Rs. 5,658. A-1 to A-7, which are the notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, statements of the claimants, panchanama of taking possession, award proceedings, claim petitions and Notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act. As such, there is nothing to impeach the figure of Rs. 5,658. 00 per acre to be the value of the yield per annum on the acquired lands. As such, Mr. Krishna Murthy, the learned government Pleader for appeals has rightly concentrated on the expenditure part and rightly submits that the expenditure, which was to be deducted out of that gross figure of Rs. 5,658. 00 ought to be 50% and not just rs. 1,658/- as was done by the civil Court. We concur with his argument and then take 50% towards expenses and on such deduction, the net value of the yield comes to Rs. 2,829. 00 per acre. The Court below while erroneously deducting only rs. 1,658/- and not deducting 50% from the value of the gross yield, had incorrectly applied a wrong multiplier of 10 and arrived at the market value at Rs. 40,000. 00 per acre taking the net value of the yield at rs. 4,000/- per acre. But, the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court in Executive Director vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi is a guiding factor with regard to correct multiplier and in that case, the multiplier of 16 was adopted. The learned Government Pleader submits that the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and particularly the decision in State of gujarat vs. Rama Rana adopted only 10 multiplier and that judgment has not been referred to by this latest Supreme Court judgment; as such, the latest Supreme Court judgment is per incuriam and should not be based for the purpose of 16 multiplier. But in Rama Rana s case, the earlier judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of india vs. Shanti Devi has not been referred. All the judgments in Sharat Chandra Bisoi s case, Rama Rana s case and Shanti Devi s case are all co-ordinate Benches of 2 judges. As the decision in Rama Rana s case did not take note of the earlier judgment in shanti Devi s case, 10 multiplier in Rama rana s case cannot be applied. All the judgments in Sharat Chandra Bisoi s case, Rama Rana s case and Shanti Devi s case are all co-ordinate Benches of 2 judges. As the decision in Rama Rana s case did not take note of the earlier judgment in shanti Devi s case, 10 multiplier in Rama rana s case cannot be applied. On the other hand, the latest Supreme Court judgment in sarat Chandra Bisoi s case has taken cognizance of me earlier judgment in Shanti devi s case in which 15 multiplier was adopted and having considered that judgment, the latest Supreme Court judgment has applied 16 multiplier. As such, we are of the considered view that the latest Supreme Court judgment in Sarat chandra Bisoi s case throws light on the adoption of proper multiplier at 16. In the circumstances, we fix the market value of the acquired lands as follows: rs. 5,658/- gross rate per acre per annum - 50% expenses = net Rs. 2,829. 00per acre per annum X 16 = Rs. 45,264. 00. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, we hold that the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was Rs. 45,264. 00 per acre and the same is payable together with additional benefits as conferred by amending Act 68 of 1984. ( 6 ) THE Government appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.