G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the common order passed by the Reference court in so far as it relates to O. P. No. 8 of 1991, dated: 16-1-1993. ( 2 ) CERTAIN extents of land situated in sy. No. 490/1 F2 of Veerlapalli village were acquired by the Government for excavation b Sagar left canal. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 5-10-1988. The Land acquisition Officer passed three awards on 31-3-1986 fixing the compensation at rs. 7,500/- per acre for dry lands and at rs. 7,500/- per acre for dry lands aided by well. He also fixed compensation at rs. 24,500/- and Rs. 45,500. 00 in respect of wells in Sy. Nos. 20/5-A and 20/3-A respectively. According to the Land acquisition Officer, there are 140 Cheeni trees in the lands in question. He awarded rs. 130/- towards the value of each tree after deducting Rs. 70. 00 towards cultivation expenses and upon applying multiplier of 15 a sum of Rs. 2,73,000. 00 was awarded for 140 cheeni trees. On reference, the Reference court enhanced the value of the land to rs. 14,500/- per acre and the value of the wells to Rs. 46,500. 00 and Rs. 86,100. 00 in Sy. No. 20/5-A and Sy. No. 20/3-A respectively. The Reference Court, however, found that there are 234 Cheeni trees instead of 140 as found by Land Acquisition Officer and it has reduced the cost of cultivation expenses to Rs. 30. 00 per tree while enhancing the multiplier to 20 years. It accordingly enhanced the value of each tree from Rs. 1,950. 00 to Rs. 3,705. 00 and applied 20 multiplier. The said order of the Reference court in O. P. is assailed in this appeal by the state. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for appeals submits that the order passed by the Reference Court enhancing the value of the land, wells and yield value of Cheeni tree and also the number of trees is absolutely illegal and contrary to law apart from being highly excessive and exhorbitant. The learned Government pleader also submits that in respect of cheeni trees the Reference Court ought to have applied the multiplier of 8 instead of 20 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in state of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh. The learned Government pleader also submits that in respect of cheeni trees the Reference Court ought to have applied the multiplier of 8 instead of 20 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in state of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded in respect of land, wells and trees is in conformity with the documentary evidence and that the period of yield was considered on the basis of the opinion of the experts and as such the order passed by the Reference Court enhancing the compensation is just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference. In support of his submission as regards the yield of the Cheeni trees, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench in G. Shiva Rami Reddy v. Special Deputy collector, LAO, SRBC, Nandyap. Where the bench approved the fixation of value of fruit bearing trees at Rs. 135. 00 per tree by applying multiplier of 16. Be it made clear that we are only concerned with the fixation of value of Cheeni trees in this appeal. ( 4 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the compensation as fixed by the reference Court in O. P. No. 8 of 1991 for the cheeni trees is just and reasonable or requires inference by this Court. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the Land acquisition Officer calculated the value for 140 trees at the rate of Rs. 1950. 00 (Rs. 135 x 15) per tree on applying multiplier of 15. However, there was a dispute as regards the actual number of the trees. According to the land Acquisition Officer, there are only 140 cheeni trees but according to the claimants there are 234 Cheeni trees. The Reference court resolved this dispute basing on the material available on record. As per Ex. A-4 award, the Cheeni trees existing in sy. No. 20/7-A over an extent of Ac. 1. 40 cents is 234. According to the report of the assistant Director of Agriculture, there were 234 plantations in the aforesaid survey number and as per the oral enquiry and adangal records, the age of the Cheeni tree is between 5 to 6 years but not one year as reported previously. No. 20/7-A over an extent of Ac. 1. 40 cents is 234. According to the report of the assistant Director of Agriculture, there were 234 plantations in the aforesaid survey number and as per the oral enquiry and adangal records, the age of the Cheeni tree is between 5 to 6 years but not one year as reported previously. Therefore, the dispute that has to be resolved relates to the number of Cheeni trees existing on the land in question. The Reference Court relying on ex. B-11 and also Ex. A-6 came to the conclusion that there were Cheeni plants numbering 234 but not 140. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding as it is based on communication between the government officials. ( 6 ) IT is now to be seen as to whether the enhancement made by the Reference Court with regard to the value of the Cheeni trees is justified. The Land Acquisition Officer though calculated the value of each tree at rs. 200/-, fixed the value of the each tree at rs. 130/- after deducting Rs. 70. 00 towards maintenance charges. As regards this aspect the Reference Court observed as under:"the cost of yielding trees as previously assessed for 234 trees need to be revaluated. Thus, the certificate given by him should be treated as cancelled. So as could be seen from ex. A-6 letter the Assistant Director without giving any reasons limited cheeni plants to 140 from 234 existing and there is no basis to say that in an extent of Ac. 1. 40 cents of land, there must be 140 or so Cheeni trees. It is in evidence that the land in Sy. No. 20/7a is under personal cultivation and the claimant was personally attending and raised the Cheeni plants and they are of fruit bearing age giving good yield. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of R. W. 5 the LAO is not justified in not awarding compensation to 94 Cheeni tress and awarding compensation only to 140 trees. The award does not disclose any reasons for not awarding compensation to 94 cheeni trees. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of R. W. 5 the LAO is not justified in not awarding compensation to 94 Cheeni tress and awarding compensation only to 140 trees. The award does not disclose any reasons for not awarding compensation to 94 cheeni trees. So under the said circumstances and facts of the case, I deem fit to award compensation for the 94 Cheeni trees also which are of same age and fruit bearing on par with compensation awarded to 140 trees by l. A. O. i. e. , for total 234 cheeni trees. It is the contest of the claimant that all the cheeni trees were raised at one and the same time and all the 234 Cheeni trees are fruit yielding and there would be yield of another 20 years but not for 15 years and the cost of cultivation expenses also would be only Rs. 30. 00 per tree as the claimant personally attending to plantation work. So considering the said facts and circumstances, I deem fit to enchance the market value of each cheeni tree in respect of all the 234 trees by 90% over and above the rate fixed by L. A. O. i. e. , the market value of each cheeni tree is fixed at Rs. 3,705. 00 raising from rs. 1950/- fixed by L. A. O. and the same market value is fixed for all the 234 cheeni trees including 94 cheeni trees for which the L. A. O. did not award any compensation at all for which L. A. O. is not justified. "thus observing the Reference Court reduced the amount fixed towards personal expenses from Rs. 70. 00 to Rs. 30. 00 and on applying multiplier of 20 instead of 15 as fixed by the land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of rs. 8,66,970/- for 234 trees @ Rs. 3,705 per each tree as against the value fixed by the land Acquisition Officer, at Rs. 1950. 00. As regards the multiplier to be adopted, the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in gurucharan Singh s case (supra) wherein multiplier of 8 was adopted while calculating value of fruit bearing trees. In that case the type of the tree that were dealt with by the Supreme Court is not available. 1950. 00. As regards the multiplier to be adopted, the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in gurucharan Singh s case (supra) wherein multiplier of 8 was adopted while calculating value of fruit bearing trees. In that case the type of the tree that were dealt with by the Supreme Court is not available. If we take general note of the situation, fruit bearing period of each tree depends on the type of the tree, nature of the soil and atmospheric conditions etc. There is no discussion by the Supreme Court on this aspect of the matter. ( 7 ) WITH the ongoing research and innovative technology in Agricultural science and related subjects, the country has made rapid strides in horticulture. Conventional system of germination through mother seeds was given a go-by and latest techniques of hybrid graftings and tissue culture have emerged as a high source of income from fruit being trees with phenomenal increase in yield both quality and quantity-wise and also yielding period. Therefore, fixing life span of a fruit bearing tree on the basis of conventional experience cannot be said to be safe and reliable method. More over, a common yielding period cannot be fixed for all types of fruit bearing trees. Life span of citrus plant, papai tree, tamarind tree, mango tree, coconut tree and cheeni tree etc. , cannot be fixed uniformly for the reason that each tree has its own yielding period. Therefore, the evidence of expert can be treated as a reliable piece of material for assessing the longevity and yield of a particular fruit bearing tree. Even within the same category of trees, the yield and period may differ. The period of yield, quality and value of yield as fixed by the Government is only a guiding factor and it cannot be the sole crieteria for fixing the compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court has considered the fixation of net income in respect of orange trees on the basis of 20 years capitalisation method in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court has considered the fixation of net income in respect of orange trees on the basis of 20 years capitalisation method in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph. In the said case, the land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation on the basis of capitalisation method of net income in respect of the coconut and Orange Thopes at 20 years purchase and the Civil Court while approving 20 years purchase interest, the estimated yield from coconut and Orange trees and also price of the trees. Ultimately, on an appeal, the High Court confirmed the capitalisation of net income at 20 years purchase as a fair method of arriving at market value. On an appeal by the State, the supreme Court confirmed the capitalisation method for 20 years. While referring to the decision of this Court reported in Kompalli nageshwara Rao v. Special Deputy Collector, land Acquisition, Bapatla (AIR 1959 A. P. 52), the Supreme Court observed in paras 11 and 12 as follows:"that the approved method for valuing orchards is to capitalize their net income at a number of years purchase which has to be fixed with reference to the nature of the trees and other circumstances and capitalized the net income at 15 years purchase for finding out the; market value of the coconut garden and the orange orchard in question in that case. In Elias M. Cohen v. Secy, of State, the net income from an orchard was capitalized at 15 years purchase to find out its market value. In this case, the Land Acquisition officer found in his award that all the fruit bearing trees will yield for more than 20 years. That was the reason which weighed with him to capitalize the net income of these topes at 20 years purchase to find out their market value. We do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge and the high Court went wrong in accepting this estimate of the average yielding life of coconut and orange trees. Therefore, we do not think that the capitalization of the net yield from these topes at 20 years purchase was not a fair method to arrive at the market value of these topes. We are not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out the market value of the topes was, in the circumstances, in any way unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that the capitalization of the net yield from these topes at 20 years purchase was not a fair method to arrive at the market value of these topes. We are not satisfied that the method of valuation adopted for finding out the market value of the topes was, in the circumstances, in any way unreasonable. " ( 9 ) THE fixation of value in respect of cheeni trees came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Siva rami Reddy s case (supra) wherein the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was also considered. The Division Bench fixed the yield of the Cheeni tree for 20 years and compensation was calculated for 16 years as the yielding period has already commenced by the date of notification. This judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Special leave to Appeal Civil No. 4021 of 2001 dt. 21-3-2003. The Division Bench has categorically referred to various decisions with regard to the market value in respect of fruit bearing trees such as Orange, Coconut and other similar type of trees in State of madras v. Joseph, Joginder Singh v. State of haryana, Rabindradhar Barua v. Collector of kamrup and Collector, Raigarh v. Chaturbhu fixed multiplier of 20 in respect of Cheeni trees. The Division Bench also considered the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Guruchamn Singh s case (supra) and observed that the type of trees involved are altogether different and as such the reference Court did not relying on the said judgment. It is, therefore, clear that the question of fixation of yield period depends on the type of fruit bearing trees and other circumstances such as, fertility of the soil, source of water and life of the plant. In fact, the Reference Court also relied upon the report of the Assistant Director, Horticulture in this regard and taking into consideration the fact that the claimants are personally cultivating, reduced the cost of expenses from Rs. 70. 00 to Rs. 30. 00 and enhanced the compensation at 90% over and the above that was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 10 ) AS can be seen from the decision of the Supreme Court, the capitalisation method in respect of Orange trees was fixed on the babasis of 20 years purchase. 70. 00 to Rs. 30. 00 and enhanced the compensation at 90% over and the above that was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 10 ) AS can be seen from the decision of the Supreme Court, the capitalisation method in respect of Orange trees was fixed on the babasis of 20 years purchase. The assistant Director had categorically stated in his report that the yield per tree would be rs. 200/- per month. In the instant case, since the trees are being nursed and cultivated personally by the claimants, the cultivation expenses were reduced and fixed at rs. 30/ -. While taking the income of chinee trees at Rs. 200. 00 and deducting 30, the net income would be Rs. 170. 00 per tree. The supreme Court has already fixed the value of chinee trees to be calculated on the basis of the 20 years and the said method was also approved by the Division Bench in Shwarami reddy s case (supra), when carried in appeal by the State, the Special Leave petition was dismissed. It is quite appropriate to fix the market value of the yield on the basis of 20 years purchase. But, in the instant case, it is on record that the trees are 5 to 6 years old on the date of the acquisition and taking into consideration that yield had already commenced and the claimants have already taken the yield for two years, the multiplier 18 could be pressed into service. Therefore, if the compensation is calculated on that basis, it works out to rs. 7,16,040/- (170x234x18) instead of rs. 8,66,970/- as awarded by the reference Court. ( 11 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The compensation of Rs. 8,66,970. 00 awarded by reference Court stands reduced to Rs. 7,16,040. 00 ( 12 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that the petitioners are also entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value. ( 13 ) NO costs.