JUDGMENT - Dr. CHANDRACHUD D.Y., J.:---A common judgment was delivered by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Amravati on 1st October, 1984 in three references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants before this Court in the two first appeals were claimants before the Reference Court in the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. In First Appeal No. 34/1986, two parcels of land have been acquired and they are Survey No. 8 admeasuring 24 acres and 12 gunthas corresponding to 13.80 hectares and Survey No. 17/2, comprising of 10 acres and 92 gunthas corresponding to 4.12 hectares. The lands are situated in Village Shimbhora, Tehsil Morshi, District Amravati. The lands were acquired under the notification issued under section 4 of the Act on 31st March, 1977. The purpose for which the lands were acquired was the Upper Wardha Project and the lands were stated to be required for the dam seat of the project. Possession of the lands was taken on 26th April, 1978. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant had claimed compensation in respect of Survey No. 8 at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre (Rs. 20,000/- per hectare) and in respect of Survey No. 17/2, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre (Rs. 15,000/- per hectare). The total claim for compensation was in the amount of Rs. 5,42,353/- and Rs. 1,23,600/- respectively in respect of the two survey numbers. The Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12th November, 1980 and under the Award an amount of Rs. 1,07,124/- and Rs. 32,258/- came to be awarded in respect of the said two survey numbers. In the reference under section 18 of the Act, additional compensation was claimed in the amount of Rs. 1,98,418/-. The reference in the case of the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986 came to be dismissed by the reference Court by its judgment and order dated 1st October, 1984. 3. In so far as First Appeal No. 172/1986 is concerned, the lands under acquisition comprised of Survey Nos. 9 and 16 of the same village of Shimbhora in the Tahsil of Morshi in the District of Amravati. Survey No. 9 admeasures 11.41 Hectares while Survey No. 16 admeasures 9.66 hectares. 3. In so far as First Appeal No. 172/1986 is concerned, the lands under acquisition comprised of Survey Nos. 9 and 16 of the same village of Shimbhora in the Tahsil of Morshi in the District of Amravati. Survey No. 9 admeasures 11.41 Hectares while Survey No. 16 admeasures 9.66 hectares. The Court is not concerned in these proceedings with Survey No. 16 since nothing was claimed in the proceedings under section 18 of the Act in relation to this survey number. The lands were acquired under a notification dated 31st March, 1977, issued under section 4 and possession was taken in the month of April 1977. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, a claim for compensation was made at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in his Award dated 12th November, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre. In the reference under section 18, additional compensation was claimed in the total amount of Rs. 59,663/- and it has been stated that the claim in the reference proceeding was confined to an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by its impugned order dated 1st October, 1984 rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of the market value of land, but awarded compensation in the total amount of Rs. 13,006.50 in addition to what had been granted by the Land Acquisition Officer on account of 15 mango trees, situated in Survey Numbers 9 and 16. 4. Before dealing with the submissions which have been urged before the Court in support of the claim for the enhancement of compensation it would, at the outset, be necessary to take note of the fact that irrespective of the outcome of the appeal in so far as the merits of the claim for enhancement is concerned, the appellants would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% under section 23(2) of the Act and to interest as admissible under sections 28 and 34. The entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of the aforesaid statutory provisions cannot be disputed in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh)1, 1989(2) S.C.C. 754 ; (Sunder v. Union of India)2, 2001(6) Scale 405 ; and (Kashiben Bhikabhai v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer)3, 2002(2) S.C.C. 605 . The entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of the aforesaid statutory provisions cannot be disputed in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh)1, 1989(2) S.C.C. 754 ; (Sunder v. Union of India)2, 2001(6) Scale 405 ; and (Kashiben Bhikabhai v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer)3, 2002(2) S.C.C. 605 . The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the appellants do not press their claim for compensation under section 23(1)(A) in view of the fact that the Awards in the present case were delivered prior to 24th April, 1982. It would also be necessary to clarify that the appellants would be entitled to interest on the market value inclusive of solatium, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 2001(6) Scale 405 . There is no dispute about these matters. 5. Now, in so far as the merits of the claim for enhancement is concerned, the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellants can be considered. Mr. Pendharkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the Land Acquisition Officer classified the lands which form the subject matter of the acquisition into various groups depending upon the revenue assessment payable in respect of each of the lands. The lands comprised in Survey Nos. 8 and 17 were assessed to fall in group III, which consists of lands whose assessment was between Rs. 2,01 to 2.41 per acre. In so far as the lands falling in group III are concerned, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer noted that there were only two sale transactions, which had taken place neither of which could be regarded as representing a correct statement of the market value. One of the two lands had been purchased by an adjoining owner. The second transaction was for a meagre amount of Rs. 500/- which was too low to be realistic. The Land Acquisition Officer then adverted to the fact that in the adjoining village of Nasirpur lands falling in the same assessment group had been acquired for the project. A statement showing the sales of lands falling in the assessment group was appended to the Award and on the basis of those transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at a valuation of Rs. A statement showing the sales of lands falling in the assessment group was appended to the Award and on the basis of those transactions, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at a valuation of Rs. 3,200/- per acre as on 31st March, 1977 in respect of the lands falling in group III. The Award notes that as village Simbhora is a village which adjoins Nasirpur and the date of the section 4 notification was the same in both the cases, this value would be reasonable for the lands falling in assessment group III. 6. On the basis of these findings which are contained in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Counsel for the appellants, sought to place reliance upon a decision of the Reference Court dated 15th June, 1981 in relation to Survey No. 15/2 of village Nasirpur. The learned Counsel urged that the acquisition of lands comprised in Survey No. 15/2 took place under the same notification and for the same public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis of a market value of Rs. 3,800/- per acre (Rs. 9,500/- per hectare). In the reference under section 18, the District Court enhanced the market value of the lands acquired to Rs. 6,750/- per acre. 7. Similarly, reliance was sought to be placed on the lands comprised in Survey No. 9/1 of village Kabirpur, admeasuring 24 acres and 24 gunthas. The notification under section 4 was issued therein on 31st August, 1978, and the Award was made on 31st December, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,200/- per acre which was enhanced by the District Court in a reference under section 18 of the Act to Rs. 7,500/- per acre. On the basis of these two decisions of the District Court in relation to the acquisition of Survey No. 15/2 of village Nasirpur and Survey No. 9/1, of village Kabirpur it was urged that the Award of the Reference Court in the present case in rejecting the reference is erroneous. 8. In evaluating the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellants, it would be necessary to scrutinise the basis upon which an enhancement of compensation was sought in the proceedings under section 18 of the Act by the appellants and the evidence which was adduced in support of the plea of enhancement on their behalf. 8. In evaluating the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the appellants, it would be necessary to scrutinise the basis upon which an enhancement of compensation was sought in the proceedings under section 18 of the Act by the appellants and the evidence which was adduced in support of the plea of enhancement on their behalf. On behalf of the appellants, who are the original claimants, the principal deposition that was sought to be relied upon was that of A.W. 1 Suresh, who is the brother of the two appellants involved in these appeals. A perusal of the evidence of A.W. 1 would show that the sole and exclusive basis on which an enhancement of the compensation was sought in the references under section 18 of the Act was the income capitalization method. In the course of the examination-in-chief, A.W. 1 made a categorical statement in paragraph 6 of the notes of evidence that he wanted the compensation for the lands to be determined by the income capitalization method. In support of the claim made on that basis, reliance was inter alia sought to be placed upon (i) registers containing the names of labourers who attended the agricultural operations between December 1972 and August 1977 (Articles 1, 2 and 3); (ii) Registers showing the income of grains and cereals and the expenditure thereon during 1971 and 1979 (Articles 4, 5 and 6); (iii) Cash books pertaining to the period 1973 and 1977, showing the income and expenditure from agricultural transactions (Articles 7 to 12); (iv) Entries in respect of grains and of labour (Articles 13 to 35); (v) Registers showing the names of contractual servants (Article 26); and (vi) Abstracts of income and expenditure for the fields in question (Articles 27 and 28). 9. The documents which have been produced on behalf of the appellants by A.W. 1, have been adverted to in some detail by me, because a perusal of the deposition of A.W. 1 would leave no manner of doubt that the entire basis for the enhancement of compensation was the income capitalization method. In paragraph 6 of the notes of evidence, A.W. 1 deposed to the annual net income which had been received from the agricultural operations for the three years of 1974-75; 1975-76 and 1976-77. In paragraph 6 of the notes of evidence, A.W. 1 deposed to the annual net income which had been received from the agricultural operations for the three years of 1974-75; 1975-76 and 1976-77. As noted earlier, A.W. 1, then stated that he wanted the compensation for the lands to be determined by the income capitalization method. Reliance was thereupon placed on the report of a Chartered Accountant, who had audited the accounts. In paragraph 10 of the notes of evidence, A.W. 1 has produced an Award, Exhibit 48, in respect of the lands of one Majidkhan. This, it has been fairly stated on behalf of the appellants, by learned Counsel, was not a comparable instance in relation to the lands involving the two appellants in these proceedings. The learned Counsel for the appellants has not placed any reliance upon the aforesaid Award, at Exhibit 48. Therefore, if the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the appellants is perused, it would be abundantly clear that save and except for evidence in regard to the income earned out of the agricultural operations and the expenditure incurred thereon, absolutely no other evidence has been adduced. The enhancement of compensation in the reference under section 18 was not sought on the basis of any comparable sale instance. Hence, no evidence of any comparable sale instance was adduced. The instances relating to the villages of Narsipur and Kabirpur were not relied upon in evidence and indeed there was no evidence in relation to them on behalf of the appellants. The evidence of the other witnesses, who deposed in support of the claim for enhancement, is along the same lines. There is, for instance, the evidence of A.W. 6, who was the Branch Manager of the Kharedi Vikri Sanstha and A.W. 7, the Chartered Accountant whose evidence, it would be necessary to consider hereafter. A.W. 9 was the Manager of the Kharedi Vikri Sangh. Therefore, the evidence which has been adduced in support of the claim for enhancement, would reveal that it was bereft of any sale instance. No effort at all was made on behalf of the appellants to place before the reference Court any comparable sale transactions. No decision or judgment of the reference Court in other Land Acquisition proceedings, either under the same notification, or even otherwise, was produced in evidence. No effort at all was made on behalf of the appellants to place before the reference Court any comparable sale transactions. No decision or judgment of the reference Court in other Land Acquisition proceedings, either under the same notification, or even otherwise, was produced in evidence. Hence, the reliance which has been sought to be placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, on the judgment of the Reference Court dated 15th June, 1981 in relation to the acquisition of lands bearing Survey No. 15/2 of Narsipur and of the decision of the reference Court dated 31st July, 1985 in relation to the acquisition of lands bearing Survey No. 9/1 of Kabirpur, would not assist the appellants. Neither of these two instances were sought to be relied upon in the course of the evidence before the Reference Court. Indeed, as noted earlier, the whole basis of the claim for enhancement before the Reference Court was not the existence of any comparable instances, but exclusively, the income capitalization method. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellants urged that in the present case the Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer had made a reference to certain sale instances in relation to village Narsipur on the ground that this was an adjoining village and that on the aforesaid basis, the Award had determined the market value at Rs. 3,200/- per acre. Consequently, it was urged that this Court would be justified in looking at the decision of the Reference Court dated 15th June, 1981 in respect of Survey No. 15/2 of Narsipur. This submission cannot be accepted. In (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer)4, 1998(3) S.C.C. 751 , the Supreme Court has formulated the well settled propositions of law as they emerge from several decisions of the Court. It is well settled that a reference under section 18 of the Act is not an appeal against the Award of the Collector. The Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless that material is produced and proved before the Court. In the present case, the instance relating to Survey No. 15/2 or, for that matter, of Survey No. 9/1, was not relied upon in the reference proceedings. The Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless that material is produced and proved before the Court. In the present case, the instance relating to Survey No. 15/2 or, for that matter, of Survey No. 9/1, was not relied upon in the reference proceedings. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer, it is equally well settled, is not to be regarded as if it were a judgment of the trial Court subject to appeal and it would not in that sense be open to challenge before the Court hearing the reference. The Award is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and even material utilised by him for making the offer cannot be utilised by the Court unless it is produced and proved before it. The reference is an original proceeding and the Reference Court has to determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before the Court. In the present case, the reliance which is sought to be placed on the aforesaid two instances is, therefore, clearly not warranted in law. 11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants next submitted by drawing an analogy from section 28-A of the Act, that it would be open to this Court to consider the decision of the Reference Court in the proceedings relating to Survey No. 15/2 of village Narsipur and to Award compensation on the same basis. There is, in my view, no merit in the submission. Section 28-A of the Act, which was introduced by an amendment of 1984, provides thus:--- "Where in an Award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the Award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the Award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court." 12. What section 28-A does is to lift the bar against claiming an enhancement of compensation where an application under section 18 for a reference is not made. That is on the basis that where in an Award the Court has granted an enhancement of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under the same notification, other persons who are also interested, can seek the benefit of the Award, even without making a formal application for a reference under section 18 of the Act. A written application has to be made to the Collector within three months of the Award of the Court. Sub-section (2) does not mandate that the Collector must in all cases give the benefit of the same rate of compensation which has been awarded by the Court in the other case. Sub-section (2) contemplates that an inquiry has to be held by the Collector, and it is for the Collector to initially determine after an inquiry as to whether the lands in respect of which the claim has been made before him, are similarly situated with the lands which form the subject matter of the Award of the Court. Sub-section (3) of section 28-A provides that a person who has not accepted the Award, may by a written application require the Collector, to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. In the present case, admittedly, recourse has not been taken to the provisions of section 28-A by the appellants. In fact, sub-section (1) of section 28-A postulates that the application to be made thereunder has to be within three months of the date of the Award of the Court. In the present case, if the appellants were of the view that they were entitled to the benefit of the Award of the Reference Court in respect of Survey No. 15/2 of village Narsipur under section 28-A, it was open to them to espouse their remedies under that provision. This has unfortunately not been done. The judgment of the District Court in the reference proceedings relating to Survey No. 15/2 was not even produced or relied upon in the evidence in these cases. This has unfortunately not been done. The judgment of the District Court in the reference proceedings relating to Survey No. 15/2 was not even produced or relied upon in the evidence in these cases. If the aforesaid instance was sought to be relied upon, it would have been open to the State to cross-examine the witness for the appellants in regard to whether the lands in question which form the subject matter of these cases were comparable to the lands which form the basis of the decision in relation to Survey No. 15/2 of Narsipur. In the circumstances, therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant in this regard. 13. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in (Gleitleger (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer)5, 1979 Mh.L.J. 494, was sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants. That was the case where reliance was sought to be placed by the State on a judgment delivered by this Court in another land acquisition matter under the same notification in an appeal arising out of the dismissal of a reference under section 18. In that context, the Division Bench, following the decision of the Supreme Court in (State of Madras v. A.N. Nanjan)6, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 651, held that : an Award given by the Collector is at least relevant material and may be in the nature of an admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in reasonable proximity of the acquired land the value found would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of compensation on a later date. The observations contained in paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Division Bench would, in my view, not assist the appellants. There can be no dispute about the proposition of law enunciated in the judgment of the Division Bench which is binding upon me. The dispute in the present case arises out of the fact that the appellants had not relied upon any comparable sale instance in the course of their evidence. There can be no dispute about the proposition of law enunciated in the judgment of the Division Bench which is binding upon me. The dispute in the present case arises out of the fact that the appellants had not relied upon any comparable sale instance in the course of their evidence. The appellants consequently failed to establish any such instance relatable to land which was comparable in terms of geographical proximity, location, fertility or other such factors. The appellants have made a conscious decision to found their claim for enhancement only on the basis of the income capitalisation method. Consistent with their having elected to do so, the appellants failed to rely upon any comparable sale instance. 14. As already noted earlier, the entire basis of the claim for enhancement in the present case was the income capitalization method. In so far as the income capitalization method is concerned, the leading judgment on the subject is the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P. Veerabhadrarappa)7, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 774. The Supreme Court has held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under section 4(1). Various methods of valuation may be adopted, these being: (i) the opinion of experts; (ii) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Mr. Justice A.P. Sen, who delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court held that normally, the method of capitalising the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years' purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. The capitalization method can be resorted to only when no other method is available. Similarly, even if the capitalization method is adopted, there is no theoretical or legal rule in regard to the application of the number of years' purchase, but it depends upon economic factors such as the prevailing rate of interest on money investments. The capitalization method can be resorted to only when no other method is available. Similarly, even if the capitalization method is adopted, there is no theoretical or legal rule in regard to the application of the number of years' purchase, but it depends upon economic factors such as the prevailing rate of interest on money investments. The Supreme Court held that at the turn of the century, it was not uncommon for the courts to adopt a rule of 20 years' purchase for arriving at the capitalized value of agricultural lands. However, the Court was of the view that it would be unrealistic to adhere to the traditional view of capitalized value being linked with gilt-edged securities when investment in fixed deposits with nationalised banks, national savings certificates and other forms of Government Securities and even in the share market command a much greater return. Consequently, the earlier rule of adopting the capitalized value of agricultural land on the basis of 20 years' purchase could no longer be adhered to in view of the changed economic situation. In so far as agricultural land is concerned, the following observations contained in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Supreme Court are significant to the context of the present case: "In regard to investment in agricultural lands, there are many imponderables inasmuch as the investor runs a much greater risk than the risk that he runs in investment in housing which consists in vagaries of weather and other uncertainties. There is no security of principal, no liquidity of investment nor any certainty of income. The appreciation of principal or income is also uncertain. The reasons for these is that agricultural lands are not readily transferable under the various land reform legislation e.g. laws relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings under the existing State laws and tenancy laws which place restrictions on transfer of such lands with concomitant danger of effacement of the rights of the absentee landlords and the creation of rights in the tillers of the soil. In evaluating the rate of return which would ordinarily satisfy an investor in such a property, the risk factor has further to be evaluated. There may be total or partial failure of crops either through failure of rain or drought, or inadequate or excessive rainfall. There may be a failure of crops on account of locust invasion or insects or pests. There may be total or partial failure of crops either through failure of rain or drought, or inadequate or excessive rainfall. There may be a failure of crops on account of locust invasion or insects or pests. The cast inputs such as seeds, water, fertilizer, labour charges etc. would vary from year to year. If the overall cost goes up, the income from the agricultural produce would be comparatively less. The fluctuations in price of agricultural produce introduce a great deal of uncertainty in regard to the income that can be expected from the sale of the produce. If the yield of the crop in other producing countries is large, or the market prices prevailing in such countries are low, the prices of such agricultural produce in India would go down. In view of these considerations, an investor would expect a much higher rate of return so that the risk factor is properly discounted." In the premises, the Supreme Court held that 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. Therefore, ruled the Supreme Court, the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalization could not in any event exceed ten. In the case before the Supreme Court, however, the State Government had conceded that the proper multiplier to be applied would be 12½ in computation of the capitalized value of the lands in the case. Therefore, in so far as the case before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was concerned, a multiplier of 12½ was adopted. 15. In the present case, the appellant relied inter alia upon the evidence of A.W. 1, Suresh and of the Chartered Accountant, A.W. 7. In so far as A.W. 1 is concerned, he sought to make out a case that the net annual income in respect of the lands, which were under acquisition was Rs. 500/- per acre for the year 1974-1975; Rs. 400/- per acre for 1975-76 and Rs. 350/- per acre for the year 1976-77. The Reference Court has, in the present case, discarded the evidence of A.W. 1. The documents which were sought to be relied upon by the witnesses, are mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. 500/- per acre for the year 1974-1975; Rs. 400/- per acre for 1975-76 and Rs. 350/- per acre for the year 1976-77. The Reference Court has, in the present case, discarded the evidence of A.W. 1. The documents which were sought to be relied upon by the witnesses, are mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the cross-examination of this witness would reveal that the so-called maintenance of accounts by the family of the witness was "only a farce". The Reference Court noted that witness had not disclosed before the Land Acquisition Officer, that accounts were maintained. Moreover, accounts were not sent to the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986 who lives abroad, nor had any amount in respect of the profits which had been earned from the cultivation of the lands, been paid to any of the other co-sharers. The Reference Court was of the view that the accounts which were sought to be produced were neither proved nor were they genuine. Besides the observations which have been made by the Reference Court on the authenticity of the accounts which were sought to be relied upon, the learned A.G.P. has drawn attention of the Court to the admission in paragraph 17 of the cross-examination of the A.W. 1. A.W. 1 who is the brother of the appellants admitted that his entire field bearing Survey No. 7 had also been acquired by the Government and that the fields bearing Survey Nos. 8 and 9, which form the subject matter of the references were situated in proximity of field Survey No. 7. The attention of the witness was drawn to the fact that in the statements made before the Land Acquisition Officer, he had stated that Survey Nos. 8 and 9 were almost similar in quality and fertility with each other. The witness admitted that he had received compensation in respect of Survey No. 7 at the rate of Rs. 800/- per acre, and that he had accepted the Award in respect of Survey No. 7. The witness admitted that the fields of all the applicants in these cases were adjacent to each other and have been acquired under the same project. 16. In this context, it would be necessary to peruse the evidence of the Chartered Accountant, A.W. 7, who deposed in the Court in support of claim for enhancement. The witness admitted that the fields of all the applicants in these cases were adjacent to each other and have been acquired under the same project. 16. In this context, it would be necessary to peruse the evidence of the Chartered Accountant, A.W. 7, who deposed in the Court in support of claim for enhancement. The Chartered Accountant stated that he had audited the accounts of the appellants for the years ending on 31st March, 1975, 31st March, 1976 and 31st March, 1977. On auditing the accounts, he stated that the average net profit of the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986 was Rs. 707/- per hectare, and for the appellant in First Appeal No. 172/1986 was Rs. 675/- per hectare. The learned trial Judge has while evaluating the evidence of the Chartered Accountant, formed the view that the evidence could not be relied upon. The learned trial Judge notes that from the cross-examination, it had emerged that it was only on one occasion that the Chartered Accountant had examined and audited the accounts of the claimants. It was noted that the appellants had not asked him to examine the audited accounts prior to 1975. Similarly, the Chartered Accountant stated that he had not taken the average yearly income of each of the survey numbers acquired separately, but had taken the average of the lands together. Similarly, the witness admitted that the abstract in relation to cotton produce did not concern each particular field. 17. The evidence of the Chartered Accountant has been evaluated by the learned trial Judge. The fact that the Chartered Accountant stated that this was the first case below the income group of Rs. 36,000/- that he dealt with in 6 years practise, is not a reason to discredit the standing of the witness. The witness stated that he had examined the accounts on one occasion on 15-1-1983. Accounts prior to the year 1975 were not audited. The Chartered Accountant stated that he had taken the average for all fields together. These are considerations which may be borne in mind while evaluating the evidence of the Chartered Accountant. The reference Court was, however, not justified in holding that the evidence of the Chartered Accountant is of no value. 18. The Chartered Accountant stated that he had taken the average for all fields together. These are considerations which may be borne in mind while evaluating the evidence of the Chartered Accountant. The reference Court was, however, not justified in holding that the evidence of the Chartered Accountant is of no value. 18. The statement made in the Examination-in-Chief by the Chartered Accountant would be sufficient to negate the correctness of the claim made on behalf of the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986. The witness stated that he had found that the average net profit of Prabhakar (the appellant in First Appeal No. 34/1986) was Rs. 707/- per hectare. This would work out to Rs. 283/- per acre. If the principle of ten years purchase is applied thereto in keeping with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Veerbhadrappa's case (A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 774), the market value that would emerge would be Rs. 2,830/- per acre. As already noted earlier, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3200/- per acre. Therefore, the plea for enhancement of compensation in First Appeal 34/1986 must fail. 19. In the case of the lands of the appellant in companion First Appeal No. 172/1986, the Chartered Accountant has deposed to the fact that he had found that the average net profit was Rs. 675/- per hectare. This would work out to Rs. 270/- per acre. On the basis of the principle of ten years' purchase, the market value would be about Rs. 2700/- per acre. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that there is a difference between what has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and what has been found by the Chartered Accountant is that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at Rs. 2200/- per acre for Survey No. 9. On an overall view of the matter, I am of the view that in so far as Survey No. 9 is concerned, which belongs to the appellant in First Appeal No. 172/86, it would be appropriate for the Court to grant an enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2200/- per acre which has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs. 2700/- per acre. 20. 2200/- per acre which has been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs. 2700/- per acre. 20. In the circumstances, in so far as the appellant in First Appeal No. 172/1986 is concerned, he would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre in respect of the acquired lands, forming part of Survey No. 9 over and above what has been granted in the Award of the Collector and by the Reference Court. The Reference Court, as already noted earlier, had granted compensation of Rs. 13,006.50 in respect of the trees over and above the compensation of Rs. 2200/- per acre that was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On Survey No. 9 there were mango trees for which Rs. 4,000/- was awarded as compensation. Having regard to the well settled position in law, the valuation of the land and the fruit bearing trees cannot be made as separate units. Hence, the enhancement of Rs. 500/- per acre granted for the field Survey No. 9 would be inclusive of the amount of Rs. 4,000/- granted for the 8 mango trees situated thereon, under the decision of the Reference Court. 21. As directed in the initial part of this judgment, the appellants would be entitled to enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% under the provisions of section 23(2) and to interest under the provisions of section 28 and, as the case may be under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claim for compensation under section 23(1)(A) of the Act has rightly not been pressed. The first appeals shall stand accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly. -----