Judgment :- K.K. Denesan, J. State is the appellant. Appeal arises from the judgment in L.A.R.48/95 decided by the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery on 31.5.2000. 2. An extent of 0.0970 hectares of land in survey No.76/15 in Purakkadi Village belonging to the claimant was acquired for the Karapuzha Irrigation Project. Statutory notification was published on 10.1.1994. Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 29.10.1994. The property was taken possession on 18.1.1994. Inclusive to all statutory benefits the respondent-claimant was given Rs.82,895/- as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, respondent-claimant filed application for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Value of the land for the purpose of compensation was fixed not on the basis of centage value but by capitalization method. There were 104 yielding coffee plants and 69 pepper plants in the acquired property. According to the respondent average yield per plant ought to have been estimated as 3 kgs as against 2 Kgs estimated by the Reference Court. On that basis the annual yield was calculated as 208 kgs. At the relevant time, the price rate of coffee was Rs.21.38. Thus the annual income from coffee was fixed at Rs.4447/-. After deducting 25% maintenance cost which comes to Rs.1112/- the annual net income was assessed at Rs.3335/-. Regarding the above calculation, there is no serious challenge in this appeal. However, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the appellant, submits that the Reference Court went wrong in adopting the multiplier of 12 for the purpose of capitalization. According to him, for coffee plants, the multiplier to be applied shall not go above 8. Applying 12 as the multiplier the capitalization value arrived at by the Reference Court is Rs.40,020/-. Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the value at Rs.30,633/-. Therefore, the Reference Court decided that the respondent-claimant was entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.9387/- on that account. 4. Coming to the valuation of pepper vines, it was found that there was 69 yielding pepper plants. Here also as against the claim of the respondent that the average yield should be estimated as 3 kgs. per pepper plant the Reference Court found that the average yield has to be fixed at 2 kgs. per plant. Annual yield was found to be 138 kgs. The price rate of pepper at the material time was Rs.26.46. Therefore, the annual yield was calculated as Rs.3122/-. per pepper plant the Reference Court found that the average yield has to be fixed at 2 kgs. per plant. Annual yield was found to be 138 kgs. The price rate of pepper at the material time was Rs.26.46. Therefore, the annual yield was calculated as Rs.3122/-. After taking 25% as maintenance cost which comes to Rs.781/-, the annual net income was calculated as Rs.2341/-. Thereafter the Reference Court applied the multiplier of 12 and arrived at the capitalization value of Rs.28,092/-. The Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the land value on the basis of income from pepper vines at Rs.22,472/-. Hence the respondent-claimant was found entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.5620/-. 5. In the light of the contentions taken by the appellant, the main question to be considered is whether the proper multiplier should be 12 or 8. 6. Learned Govt. Pleader placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh & Anr., 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 637 and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1423, to canvass for the proposition that as far as yield from the trees or plantation, 8 (eight) would be the appropriate multiplier. In Airports Authority's case (supra) Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 as follows:- “Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurucharan Singh’s case (supra) and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18”. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent per contra submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Geevarghese Koshy v. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT SN 17., Case No.23, held that the multiplier of 15 will be appropriate and in that view of the matter the multiplier fixed as 12 was modified holding that the claimant would be entitled to compensation by fixing the land value applying the multiplier of 15. Learned counsel further submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India may not apply to the facts of this case for the Supreme Court was concerned in that case with the assessment of compensation as a result of cutting of trees standing in the property, whereas in this case the multiplier has been applied adopting the capitalization method for arriving at the market value of the land acquired and the compensation to be paid for such land. 8. A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India shows that the principle of law as stated in Gurucharan Singh’s case (supra) was reiterated wherein the question for consideration was fixation of land value by adopting the capitalization method based on actual yield of trees or plantation or agricultural procedure. In. Gurucharan Singh’s case, the Apex Court reversed the decision of the High Court which granted compensation by capitalization method for fixing the land value together with compensation for cutting of trees and held that both the methods cannot be applied in one and the same case where compensation for land was the issue. Therefore, it was held that while determining compensation on the basis of the yield for fixation of land value a multiplier of more than 8 (eight) shall not be applied. I therefore find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the upper ceiling of 8 as the multiplier can be applied only when compensation is awarded for cutting of trees and not for fixation of land value adopting capitalization method. In the light of the Supreme Court decision, I do not think that the facts and circumstances of this case justify the application of the decision of the Division Bench in Geevarghese Koshy’s case (supra). Moreover, it is seen that while deciding Geevarghese Koshy’s case, the ruling of the Apex Court in Gurucharan Singh’s case and Airports Authority of India's case (supra) were not brought to the notice of the learned Judges. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the difference in the land value after adopting the multiplier of 8 will be very marginal and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal even assuming that 12 cannot be the proper multiplier. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the difference in the land value after adopting the multiplier of 8 will be very marginal and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal even assuming that 12 cannot be the proper multiplier. Learned counsel relies on the observation made by the Supreme Court in Airports Authority case (supra) wherein it was stated that Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the award on the ground that the compensation awarded was meager. I am afraid such a course cannot be adopted by this Court, because, Supreme Court has observed in the very same decision that the non-interference on the ground of marginal difference in the total compensation cannot, be followed as a precedent. Therefore, the decision of the Reference Court adopting 12 as the multiplier so far as yield from the coffee plants is concerned has to be set aside modifying the multiplier as 8 as held by the Supreme Court. 10. Though learned Govt. Pleader submitted that as far as pepper vines are concerned 8 should be the proper multiplier, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, it is not quite clear from materials on record in this case whether 8 should be the proper multiplier so far as pepper vines are concerned. It is pointed out that a distinction can be drawn between yield from trees or plantation and yield from agricultural lands. As far as this case is concerned, it has not been established by the appellant that yield from pepper vines was from non-agricultural lands. Indisputably yield from pepper vines cannot be reckoned as yield from trees merely because the pepper vines were found inside or near the coffee plantation. Hence, the same yardstick as was applied in the case of coffee cannot be applied to pepper vines. 11. I have found as stated in the previous paragraphs that ‘8’ is the proper multiplier when capitalized valuation method is applied to coffee plantation. But in the peculiar facts of this case as shown below, the compensation payable to the respondent will be something more than the amount to be worked out applying ‘8’ as the multiplier. 11. I have found as stated in the previous paragraphs that ‘8’ is the proper multiplier when capitalized valuation method is applied to coffee plantation. But in the peculiar facts of this case as shown below, the compensation payable to the respondent will be something more than the amount to be worked out applying ‘8’ as the multiplier. “Net annual income from Coffee plants as fixed by the Reference Court : 3,335/- Capitalised value if ‘12’ is the multiplier (3335 x 12) : ­40,020/-­ Capitalised value given by the Land Acquisition Officer : 30,633/­- Capitalised value if ‘8’ is the multiplier (3335 x 8) : 26,680/-­ If ‘8’ is taken as multiplier, the capitalized value of coffee plant will be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. S.25 of the Land Acquisition Act mandates that the award of the Reference Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11 of the Act. Hence, the compensation for the coffee plantation has to be fixed at the rate granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., Rs.30,633/-. Therefore, instead of Rs.40,020/- awarded by the Reference Court for coffee plantation, the compensation payable on that count is refixed as Rs.30,633/-. In all other respects the impugned award is upheld. Appeal is partly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.