JUDGMENT The appellant-State, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkot and the claimant-respondent - cross objector being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13th October, 2003 in LAC No. 102 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, the appellant on the ground that, the enhancement made by the Reference Court is excessive and not sustainable, and the cross objector on the ground that, the enhancement of compensation made by Reference Court is inadequate, have presented the instant appeal and cross objection respectively before this Court. 2. The lands bearing R.S. Nos. 113/1 and 113/1B measuring 04 acres situate at Talagihal Village in Bagalkot District along with several other lands were notified and acquired by the State Government vide preliminary Notification dated 27th June, 1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'Act') for submergence of backwater Almatti reservoir. The lands in question have been classified as "irrigated lands" irrigated through borewell. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a sum of Rs. 31,200/- per acre as compensation in respect of the lands in question. Not being satisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant-respondent herein (cross objector) has filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 31,200/- per acre to a sum of Rs. 74,250/- per acre adopting capitalisation method. Being aggrieved by the said enhancement by the Reference Court, the appellant herein has presented the instant appeal and the claimant-respondent - cross objector has filed the instant cross objection claiming further enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the enhancement of compensation made by the Reference Court is inadequate. Therefore, the appellant and cross objector felt necessitated to present the instant appeal and instant cross objection respectively. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Counsel appearing for cross objector. 4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant is that, though the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value after taking into consideration all the relevant factors at Rs. 31,200/- per acre, the Reference has erred in enhancing the same to a sum of Rs. 74,250/- per acre and the same is unreasonable. 4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant is that, though the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value after taking into consideration all the relevant factors at Rs. 31,200/- per acre, the Reference has erred in enhancing the same to a sum of Rs. 74,250/- per acre and the same is unreasonable. He submitted that, the Reference Court has erroneously proceeded on the basis that, two crops were being raised on the lands in question and fixed the market value st Rs. 74,250/- per acre. He further submitted that, the yield and rates taken by the Reference Court for the purpose of determining the gross income is on the higher side and the Reference Court ought to have deducted more than 50% towards the cost of cultivation and the multiplier adopted by the Reference Court is also on the higher side. Therefore, he submitted that, the method adopted by the Reference Court is opposed to the principles of valuation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for claimant-cross objector, inter alia, contended and vehemently submitted that, the amount awarded by the Reference Court is not just and reasonable. He submitted that, the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the potentiality of the lands and nature of crops grown on the said lands. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the original records and drew my attention to the record of rights extract, Ex. P. 2-Yield Certificate, Ex. P. 3-Price-list and also placed heavy reliance on Ex. P. 9-consent award and submitted that, the said consent award passed is in respect of the land belonging to none other than the own brother of the cross objector and the same is adjacent to the lands in question. Further, he submitted that, the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 24,750/- in respect of the second crop instead of enhancing it to a sum of Rs. 49,500/- like the first crop, contrary to the well-settled law laid down by this Court. Further, he submitted that, the Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the compensation amount to Rs. 24,750/- in respect of the second crop instead of enhancing it to a sum of Rs. 49,500/- like the first crop, contrary to the well-settled law laid down by this Court. To substantiate the said submission, he placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 11th November, 2003 in M.F.A. No. 2752 of 2001, wherein it is held that, the reliance placed by the Reference Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v lrasangavva , cannot be taken to be a universal declaration to state that, in each and every case de hors the evidence on record the Civil Court should take the yield of the second crop at 50% of the first crop. Therefore, he submitted that, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified and the compensation may be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 01,16,000/- per acre on the basis that the Division Bench of this Court, in similar matters, has determined the market value at Rs. 01,16,000/- per acre. 6. After hearing learned Government leader appearing for appellant, learned Counsel appearing for cross objector, after careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file, threadbare, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, particularly paragraph 11 of the judgment, it is seen that, the Reference Court has given a specific finding that, the lands in question are 'irrigated lands' and the claimant-respondent is growing two crops namely sunflower and groundnut. The Reference Court has fixed the market value of groundnut, after taking into consideration Ex. P. 2-yield certificate issued by the Competent Authority, Ex. P. 3-price-list also issued by the Competent Authority. To arrive at the market value of groundnut, the Reference Court has taken the net price of groundnut at Rs. 1,100/- per quintal and if It is 'multiplied by 09 quintals of groundnut, it comes to Rs. 09,900/- and if it is again multiplied by 10, then, the gross income comes to Rs. 99,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, if 50% is deducted from the said sum of Rs. 99,000/- as expenses of cultivation, then, it comes to Rs. 49,500/- per acre. 09,900/- and if it is again multiplied by 10, then, the gross income comes to Rs. 99,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, if 50% is deducted from the said sum of Rs. 99,000/- as expenses of cultivation, then, it comes to Rs. 49,500/- per acre. Therefore, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 49,500/- per acre in respect of the first crop grown on the land in question. So far as the second crop grown on the land in question is concerned, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 24,750/- (50% of market value fixed for first crop). The market value fixed by the Reference Court in respect of the second crop grown on the land in question cannot be accepted in view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for cross objector. When the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion of considering lrasangavva's case, the Division Bench has referred and clarified by its order dated 11th November, 2003 in M.F.A. No. 2752 of 2001 (The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagalkot District v Gurappa). It is worthwhile to extract the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 6 of its order with regard to lrasangauva's case which reads thus.- "6. As could be seen from careful reading of paragraph 8 of the judgment, taking of income of the subsidiary crop at 50% of the gross income from the principal crop would arise only in a case where necessary materials are not before the Court to show the income derived from the second crop. In the instant case, the acquired land is held to be irrigated land and that finding is not disputed before us. It is also not disputed before us that, in the first and the second crop the owners of the acquired land used to grow sunflower and groundnut. The yield certificate Ex. P. 3 and price list Ex. P. 4 would go to show that in each of the crop grown in irrigated land the owner of the acquired land used to have the yield as reflected in Ex. P. 3. The yield certificate Ex. P. 3 and price list Ex. P. 4 would go to show that in each of the crop grown in irrigated land the owner of the acquired land used to have the yield as reflected in Ex. P. 3. In that view of the matter, the general observation made by this Court in a peculiar act situation of that case in Special Land Acquisition officer v lrasangavva, cannot be taken to be a universal declaration to state that in each and every case de hors the evidence on record the Civil Court should take the yield of the second crop ct 50% of the first crop. We do not find any such ratio in the above judgment of this Court. Since the above contention of the Government Advocate is not acceptable, the appeal should fail ..... " (emphasis supplied) The Division Bench of this Court has clerified that, lrasangavva's case cannot be taken to be the universal declaration to state that in each and every case, de hors the evidence on record, the Civil Court should take the yield of the second crop at 50% of the first crop and that, they do not find any such ratio of law laid down in lrasangavva's case. Therefore, the Division Bench has taken into consideration that, there was no dispute before the Division Bench that, in the first and second crop, the owners of the land used to grow sunflower and groundnut and the yield certificate and price-list showed that, in each of the crop grown in irrigated land, the owner of the acquired land used to have the yield as per the yield certificate. Therefore, the Division Bench held that, the general observation made by this Court in a peculiar fact situation of lrasangavva's case cannot be taken to be a universal declaration in each and every case. It is significant to note that, in the instant case also, the Reference Court has taken into consideration Ex. P. 2-the yield certificate issued by the Competent Authority and Ex. P. 3-price-list also issued by the Competent Authority and there is no dispute regarding the same either before the Reference Court or this Court. It is significant to note that, in the instant case also, the Reference Court has taken into consideration Ex. P. 2-the yield certificate issued by the Competent Authority and Ex. P. 3-price-list also issued by the Competent Authority and there is no dispute regarding the same either before the Reference Court or this Court. Further, one more aspect to be borne in mind is that, so far as the award passed in respect of the adjacent land of the brother of the claimant-respondent (cross objector) is concerned, the said award has been passed by consent and the said document is very much available in the original records and is marked as Ex. P. 9. In the said award, the market value is settled at a sum of Rs. 01,48,000/-. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Reference Court and fixed the compensation at Rs. 24,750/- per acre in respect of the second crop. The Division Bench of this Court has clarified by its order dated 11th November, 2003 in M.F.A. No. 2752 of 2001 (The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagalkot District v Gurappa) that, lrasangavva's case cannot be taken to be the universal declaration to state that in each and every case, de hors the evidence on record, the Civil Court should take the yield of the second crop at 50% of the first crop and that, they do not find any such ratio of law laid down in lrasangavva's case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for cross objector. However, the submission of the learned Counsel for cross objector that the Reference Court has erred in not taking into consideration the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 2752 of 2001 (supra) has no legs to stand for the simple reason that, as on the date of passing the impugned judgment and award by the Reference Court, there was no such judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the said judgment is passed subsequent to the passing of the impugned judgment and award. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment (extracted above), in my considered view, the claimant-respondent (cross objector) is entitled for a sum of Rs. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment (extracted above), in my considered view, the claimant-respondent (cross objector) is entitled for a sum of Rs. 49,500/- in respect of the second crop also instead of Rs. 24,750/- fixed by the Reference Court. The amount of Rs. 24,7501- awarded by the Reference Court is further enhanced by 24,750/- and accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified and the appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant and the cross objection filed by cross objector stand disposed of with the allowing directions.- (i) Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified; (ii) The cross objection filed by the cross objector is partly allowed. The market value fixed by the reference in respect of the second crop is enhanced to Rs. 49,500/- in respect of the lands in question; (iii) The Reference Court has totally awarded a sum of Rs. 74,250/- per acre and the same is enhanced to Rs. 99,000/ per acre and all the statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court hold good. 7. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the cross objector is partly allowed. 8. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance in M.F.A. CROB. No. 80 of 2004 within four weeks from today.