JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20-1-2003 in LAC No. 1122 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga on the ground that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. 2. The land bearing Sy. No. 53/1-2 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas situated at Kalmood Village, Gulbarga Taluk and District, has been notified and acquired for the purpose of construction of Lake at Kalmood Village vide preliminary notification dated 31-10-1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer by taking into consideration all the relevant factors and other material available on the file, has passed the award on 12-11-1998 fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimants-respondents herein filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and requested the LAO to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court. The Reference Court, in turn, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, has redetermined the market value at Rs. 45,150/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have presented this appeal on the ground that the enhancement made by the Reference Court is excessive, contrary to the oral and documentary evidence and opposed to all the principles of valuation. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. After careful evaluation of the original records available on the file and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Reference Court in determining the market value. The Reference Court, after appreciation of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the documentary evidence Ex. P. 3-yield notification, Ex. P. 4-price list, Ex. P. 5-the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 1782 of 1997 and connected matters, Exs. P. 6 and P.7-the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 393 of 1998 and after giving cogent reasons in para 11 of the judgment, has determined the market value of the land in question at Rs. 45,150/- per acre. The Reference Court, relying on Ex. P. 6 and P.7-the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 393 of 1998 and after giving cogent reasons in para 11 of the judgment, has determined the market value of the land in question at Rs. 45,150/- per acre. The Reference Court, relying on Ex. P. 3-yield certificate issued by the Competent Authority, has taken the yield of jowar at 6 quintals and toor at 4 quintals. Further, relying on Ex. P. 4-price list, it has taken the average price of jowar at Rs. 825/- per quintal which would come to Rs. 4,950/- per acre. To that amount, it has added Rs. 1,000/- being the income from 4 cartloads of jowar fodder at Rs. 250/- and arrived at the total value of jowar at Rs. 5,950/-. So far as toor crop is concerned, it has taken the average price at Rs. 2,275/- which would come to Rs. 9,100/- per acre. Then, the total value of the said two crops comes to Rs. 15,0507- and their average value would be Rs. 7,525/-. Out of that, the Reference Court has deducted 40% towards cost of cultivation relying on the judgment of this Court in State and Ors. v. Mallanna and Anr. M.S.A. No. 165 of 1999 applied the multiplier of 10 relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Others, AIR 1984 SC 774 and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Dam Project, Saundatti and Others Vs. Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki and Others, JT (1995) 6 SC 373 and arrived at the market value of the land in question at Rs. 45,150/- per acre. The determination is made by the Reference Court after giving cogent reasons with reference to the credible documentary evidence. I do not find any error or infirmity as such committed by the Reference Court in determining the market value. 5. So far as the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the Reference Court has committed an error in adding Rs. 1,000/- being the income from 4 cartloads of jowar fodder is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, M and MIP, Gulbarga v. Laxmikant and Ors. 1,000/- being the income from 4 cartloads of jowar fodder is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, M and MIP, Gulbarga v. Laxmikant and Ors. M.F.A. No. 2741 of 2002, DD: 16-7-2002 wherein it is held that: We do not, however, see any compelling reason to reject the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court only on that account. We say so for more than one reason. Firstly, because although the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by Mr. Ashok Kumar do suggest as though fodder from the cultivation of a cereals crop is not taken into account, the judgment does not elaborate or indicate the reason why it would be impermissible to do so especially when fodder is a valuable yield from the lands under cultivation. Secondly because the net effect of taking the fodder resultant from the jowar crop is considered by minimized by the Reference Court taking the average income from the two crops as the gross income and reducing the same further by 40% towards the cost of cultivation. The net result is that the addition of Rs. 1,200/- per acre for a single crop eventually makes a difference of Rs. 300/- per acre in the ultimate analysis. It is well-known that the determination of compensation payable to the landowners for the property acquired from them involves a certain amount of guess work of speculation. It is literally impossible to determine the market value of a given piece of property accurate to the last penny. In the circumstances, so long as the determination does not suffer from a defect so patent as to render the basis on which it is arrived at wholly untenable, an Appellate Court need not interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. 6. In view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court as referred above, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the Reference Court has committed an error in adding Rs. 1,000/- to the gross income being the income from 4 cartloads of jowar fodder. 6. In view of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court as referred above, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the Reference Court has committed an error in adding Rs. 1,000/- to the gross income being the income from 4 cartloads of jowar fodder. Further, it is pertinent to note here itself that the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of this Court have taken a consistent view as early as in the year 2002 that it is just and reasonable to take the yield of jowar and toor at 6 quintals each in Gulbarga District and the said finding has become final. Inspite of it, without any justification and without going into the root of the matter, time and again, the State is taking a ground that the yield taken by the Reference Court is on the higher side. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on some earlier judgments of this Court in this regard cannot be made applicable universally de horsing the oral and documentary evidence available on the file. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this appeal is dismissed.