JUDGMENT These two appeals by common appellant are directed against the common judgment and award dated 14th June, 2001 in LAC No. 149 of 1999 and LAC No. 150 of 1999 respectively on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raichur, on the ground that, the amount awarded by Reference Court is excessive. 2. Land bearing Sy. No. 63/2, measuring 2 acres 36 guntas (LAC No. 149 of 1999) and Sy. No. 62/lB measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, both situate at Devarbhupur Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District, along with several lands have been notified and acquired by Government through common appellant herein vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29th February, 1996 for the purpose of 'formation of Narayanpur Left Canal'. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking all relevant factors into consideration, has passed the award, fixing the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents-claimants herein filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The Reference Court, in turn, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by adopting capitalisation method, having regard to fertility of the lands in question and nature of crops grown such as groundnut and toor, and taking into consideration that, the lands are irrigated lands, by taking the yield as per the yield notification and price as per the price list issued by the Competent Authority, by giving necessary deduction towards cost of cultivation, and also by adopting the appropriate multiplier of 10', has determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 54,000/- per acre. 54,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the said determination of market value by the Reference Court, on the ground that, the market value fixed by Reference Court is excessive, contrary to the oral and documentary evidence, reliance placed upon the interested testimony of claimants-respondents is not proper and that the Reference Court erred in treating the lands as irrigated lands, and the method adopted is also contrary to all the principles of valuation, the common appellant in these two appeals felt necessitated to present the instant two appeals for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court. 3. I have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for common appellant for considerable length of time. All the claimants-respondents are served and unrepresented. After thorough evaluation of the entire original records available on file threadbare and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court, RTC extracts at Exhibits P. 8 and P. 9; Ex. P. 10-service certificate of KEB, Ex. P. 11-KEB Bill, Ex. P. 12-price list, Ex. P. 13-package of practice book and two certificates at Exs. P. 14 and P. 15, it emerges on the face of the judgn1ent and award and the records available on file that. Reference Court has not committed any error or illegality as such in determining the market value and the said judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmities or material irregularities. The Reference Court has rightly determined the market value by adopting the capitalisation method, giving necessary deduction, and by adopting the right multiplier of 10', as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court has also placed reliance on the well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, for arriving at the market value of Rs. 54,000/- per acre in respect of the lands in question. In my view, the said determination of market value by Reference Court is just, fair and reasonable. 4. It is the case of claimant, who examined himself as P.W. 1 and deposed in his evidence that, the lands in question are irrigated lands and that, he is growing irrigated crops such as 'groundnut' and 'toor'. To substantiate the said oral statement made in his deposition, he has placed reliance on the entries found in the RTC extracts found at Exs. To substantiate the said oral statement made in his deposition, he has placed reliance on the entries found in the RTC extracts found at Exs. P. 8 and P. 9, wherein it is shown therein that, the lands in question are irrigated through well and that, irrigated crops like 'groundnut and 'toor' are grown in the said lands. Further, the claimant has also placed reliance on Ex. P. 10-service certificate issued by KEB, Ex. P. 11-KEB Bill, Ex. P. 12-price list issued by the Competent Authority and the yield certificate issued by the Competent Authority. After appreciation of the evidence of claimant-P.W. 1 by Reference Court, the appellant has not been successful in eliciting any worthwhile evidence from the claimant-P.W. 1 to disbelieve the evidence of claimant, P.W. 1 and the entries found in the RTC extracts, KEB Bill, price list, etc., and to establish that, the lands in question are not irrigated lands. The Reference Court, by adopting capitalisation method, has taken the yield as per the yield notification at Ex. P. 13, by taking average yield of 'groundnut' at 10 quintals per acre and average yield of 'toor' at 7 quintals per acre. As per Ex. P. 12-the price list issued by the Competent Authority-APMC, Raichur, the Reference Court has taken the average price of 'groundnut' at Rs. 1,120/- per quintal and average price of ' to or' at Rs. 1,510/- per quintal. The market value of 'ground nut' is determined by multiplying the average yield by the average price, i.e., 10 quintals x Rs. 1,120/-, which comes to Rs. 11,200/- and if 50% towards cost of cultivation is deducted from the said sum, as the lands in question are irrigated lands, it comes to Rs. 5,600/-. The market value of 'toor' is determined by multiplying the average yield by the average price, i.e., 7 quintals x Rs. 1,510/-, which comes to Rs. 10,570/- and if 50% towards cost of cultivation is deducted from the said sum, as the lands in question are irrigated lands, it comes to Rs. 5,285/-. The said net income from both crops, 'groundnut' and 'toor' is added and it comes to Rs. 10,885/- and the average of the same comes to Rs. 5,442.50 and the same is rounded off to Rs. 5,400/-. 5,285/-. The said net income from both crops, 'groundnut' and 'toor' is added and it comes to Rs. 10,885/- and the average of the same comes to Rs. 5,442.50 and the same is rounded off to Rs. 5,400/-. As per the mandatory provisions of the Act, the same is multiplied by 10 to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands for one year, per acre, i.e., Rs. 5,400 x 10 = Rs. 54,000/per acre. The Reference Court has rightly determined the said market value after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and given a specific finding for arriving at the said market value, referred above. The said reasoning given by the Reference Court for determination of the market value at paragraph 10 of its judgment is in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also in compliance of well-settled law laid down by Apex Court and this Court. Hence, I do not find any error as such committed by Reference Court in detem1ining the market value nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court by producing any rebuttal documents at least before this Court, to establish that, the lands are not irrigated lands and that, the amount awarded by Reference Court is excessive. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the determination of market value by Reference Court is just, fair and reasonable and interference by this Court is uncalled for. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, these appeals are dismissed as being devoid of any merits.