TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 7th of November, 2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior division, Jamkhandi in L. A. C. Nos. 3347 and 3348 of 1999, whereby compensation payable to the respondent-landowners has been enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- per acre to Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre and the entire extent of land acquired held to be wetland. ( 2 ) LAND measuring 2 acres and 25 guntas in Sy. No. 12/3 and 2 acres and 13 guntas in Sy. No. 12/2 of Koppa S. R. Village in Bilagi Taluk was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for submersion in the backwaters of Almatti Reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer in due course made an award, whereby he determined a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre in respect of irrigated land measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas in Sy. No. 12/3. Dissatisfied with the award, the owners sought a reference to the Civil Court, who has, as stated earlier, raised the compensation to Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre besides holding that the entire extent of land in the two survey numbers mentioned above was irrigated land. The Reference Court has also enhanced the compensation payable to the owners of the farmhouse in L. A. C. No. 3347 of 1999. Aggrieved by the order made by the Reference Court, the special Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present appeals. ( 3 ) MR. K. P. Ashok Kumar, learned High Court Government Advocate made a twofold submission. He urged that the Reference Court was in error in determining a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre as compensation for the land in question. He contended that the Reference Court had proceeded on the assumption that the landowners were cultivating two crops, the yield wherefrom was comparable. He argued that whenever two crops are raised in any land used for agricultural purposes, the yield from the second crop has to be taken as 50% of the yield from the first crop. The Reference Court was, according to the learned Counsel in error in ignoring the said principle in determining the compensation as though the yield from both the crops was the same. In support, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special. The Reference Court was, according to the learned Counsel in error in ignoring the said principle in determining the compensation as though the yield from both the crops was the same. In support, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special. Land acquisition Officer v Smt. Irasangavva. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the lands in question were irrigated land situate on the bank of Krishna river and that the yield from the same was certified by the Assistant Director of agriculture, Bagalkot in terms of his notification dated 18th of March, 1985 marked as Ex. P. 4. It was contended that compensation for comparable land situate in the Village Gothe in the neighbouring Jamakhandi had been determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre in l. A. C Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1995. The Reference Court was therefore justified in determining an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation based on the capitalisation method and having regard to the material produced by the claimants not only in regard to the yield but also the prevalent price thereof during the relevant period. ( 5 ) THE Reference Court has adopted the capitalisation method for purposes of determining the amount of compensation payable to the landowners. It was relying upon the testimony of one of the claimants and the yield certificate. Ex. P. 4, issued by the Assistant Director of agriculture, Bilagi, taken the yield of hybrid maize at 20 quintals and groundnut at 12 quintals at Rs. 12 per acre. In the case of sunflower, the reference Court has taken the yield to be 6 to 8 quintals per acre from irrigated land. Relying upon the rate list, Ex. P. 5, for the year 1995-96, the average price of groundnut during the relevant period has been taken as Rs. 1,124/- per quintal, that of maize at Rs. 406 per quintal and sunflower at Its. 1,203/- per quintal. The Court has on that basis concluded that the landowners were earning Rs. 13,488/- per acre from groundnut and Rs. 9,624/- per acre from sunflower and Rs. 8,120/- per acre from maize. Since sunflower and groundnut were being grown as first crop and maize and groundnut as second crop alternatively, the court has taken average of sunflower and groundnut at Rs. 11,500/- per crop per acre. 13,488/- per acre from groundnut and Rs. 9,624/- per acre from sunflower and Rs. 8,120/- per acre from maize. Since sunflower and groundnut were being grown as first crop and maize and groundnut as second crop alternatively, the court has taken average of sunflower and groundnut at Rs. 11,500/- per crop per acre. Income from maize and groundnut has been on an average taken at Rs. 10,804/- per crop per acre, The income from the first and the second crops viz. , Rs. 11,500/- plus Rs. 10,804/- has thus come to Rs. 22,304/-, out of which the Court has deducted 50% towards cost of cultivation relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Others v Rama Rana and Others. The net annual income per acre of the land in question has thus been worked out at Rs. 11,150/-, which has been capitalised ten times to arrive at the figure of Rs. 1,11,500/ -. The Reference Court has also drawn support for the above figure from its decision in L. A. C. Nos. 1244 and 1245 of 1991 situate in the adjacent Jamkhandi Taluk. Those lands had been acquired in terms of 4 (1) notification published on 2nd of November, 1995, whereas, the lands in question were notified for acquisition in February 1996. The court has eventually held that the market-value of the lands in question was not less than Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre. There is, in our opinion, no legal or other flaw in the principle adopted by the Reference Court or the process of reasoning by which it has arrived at the amount of compensation due to the owners. Even Mr. K. P. Ashok Kumar did not find fault with the capitalisation method for purposes of determining the market value of the property having regard to the fact that the sales statistics were neither available nor pressed into service by anyone of the parties in the Court below. The only submission made by Mr. Kumar was that the Reference Court has while determining the amount of compensation payable to the owners overlooked the fact that the owners were growing two crops. That being so, the yield from the second crop could not, according to the learned Counsel, be taken to be the same as from the first crop. The only submission made by Mr. Kumar was that the Reference Court has while determining the amount of compensation payable to the owners overlooked the fact that the owners were growing two crops. That being so, the yield from the second crop could not, according to the learned Counsel, be taken to be the same as from the first crop. The yield from the second crop could, according to him, be reduced by 50% for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to the owners. ( 6 ) IN Special Land Acquisition Officer's case, supra, his Court was dealing with a case, where there was no cogent evidence regarding the certainty and adequacy of irrigation. It was in that context that the court observed that in cases, where certainty and adequacy of the source and means of irrigation was not established, the yield from the second crop must be taken as half that of the first crop. That proposition was not disputed before us. The yield from the second crop must in the absence of a certain and adequate source of irrigation be less than the yield from the first crop. At the same time, the yield is directly related to the irrigation facilities available for the land under cultivation. If the land is properly irrigated and the source of irrigation is adequate and certain, the difference between the yield of the first and the second crop would become negligible if not disappear totally. That is so particularly with the improved and scientific means of cultivation, availability of fertilizers and better seeds developed with scientific study and research. The Reference Court in the instant case found that the land in question was irrigated land. Even the Land Acquisition Officer had treated a part of the land to be irrigated while the rest was dealt with as dry land. The finding of the Reference Court that the entire extent was irrigated has not been challenged by the appellant in these appeals. The only question then is whether the source of irrigation was inadequate or uncertain as was sought to be argued by Mr. Ashok Kumar. We however find no basis for the submissions that the source of irrigation was either inadequate or uncertain as suggested by the learned Counsel. The lands were situate on the bank of Krishna river, which is perennial. Ashok Kumar. We however find no basis for the submissions that the source of irrigation was either inadequate or uncertain as suggested by the learned Counsel. The lands were situate on the bank of Krishna river, which is perennial. They are admittedly getting submerged under the backwaters of Almatti dam. There is also material to show that the owners had installed irrigation pumpsets for irrigation purposes. Situate on the bank of a perennially flowing river with adequate irrigation infrastructure, the lands could and were being adequately irrigated for both the crops. There is therefore no need for reducing the yield for the second crop as argued by Mr. Ashok Kumar. That apart, the award of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for the land situate in the adjacent taluk which too are being irrigated by Krishna river substantially supports the claim made by the owners. The time gap between the notifications issued in the said cases and those issued in the instant case is hardly three months. Suffice it to say that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre for the land in question is not in the light of the material placed on record and what has been stated above excessive so as to call for any interference. ( 7 ) IT was next argued by Mr. Ashok Kumar that the Reference Court had fallen in error in enhancing the compensation determined by the land Acquisition Officer for the structures standing in Sy. No. 17/3 in l. A. C. No. 3347 of 1999. He argued that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the owner's claim for enhancement of compensation for the structures existing on the said survey number. The enhancement ordered by the Reference Court was therefore wholly unjustified. ( 8 ) THE Reference Court has while dealing with compensation determined for the structures standing in Sy. No. 12/3 directed enhancement by 50% of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that in case of structures, the Court awards such enhanced compensation. The only reason available in the judgment of the Reference court for the enhancement in the words of the said Court is that "in the cases of structures, the Court awards 50% over and above the compensation awarded by the appellant". We find it difficult to appreciate that line of reasoning. The only reason available in the judgment of the Reference court for the enhancement in the words of the said Court is that "in the cases of structures, the Court awards 50% over and above the compensation awarded by the appellant". We find it difficult to appreciate that line of reasoning. There is no general rule of law, procedure or propriety that in the case of structures the amount of compensation must be enhanced by 50% of what the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded. We fail to understand how the Reference Court could have ordered enhancement only on the tenuous ground that the Court always enhances such compensation by 50%> of what is awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Enhancement of compensation over and above what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer can be justified only if the evidence adduced by the owners justifies the same. In the instant case, the owners of the land and the structures in L. A. C. No. 3347 of 1999 had adduced no evidence whatsoever to show that what was determined by the land Acquisition Officer was less than the actual cost of the structures. The nature of the structures and the market-value thereof on the relevant date is a matter which is totally obscure. Such being the position, we find it difficult to sustain the order made by the Reference Court insofar as it directs an enhancement in the compensation payable for the structures. ( 9 ) IN the result, M. F. A. No. 1620 of 2001 arising out of L. A. C. No. 3347 of 1999 is allowed in part and to the extent that the enhancement ordered by the Reference Court insofar as the structure standing on Sy. No. 12/3 shall stand set aside. M. F. A. No. 1621 of 2001 however fails in toto and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .