ORDER 1.11.2007 — Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants does not want to press the cross appeal and the misc. case for exemption of Court fee. Therefore, the cross appeal and the misc. case No. 285 of 2005 are dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the parties submit that paper books are not necessary and that appeal can be disposed of with the materi¬als available on record. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the L.C.R. This appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh in L.A.Case No. 32 of 1999 answering a reference under Section 18 of the L.A.Act. Ac. 10.21 decimals of lands out of Khata Nos. 5, 7, 10(N) 19 and 56 of village-Nanei under Barkote Police Station belonging to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of Rengali Dam Project by notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisi¬tion Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Deogarh awarded a compensation of Rs. 60,195.43 for the acquired lands, change of residence and standing trees including all statutory benefits. The respondents accepted the said compensation under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for adjudi¬cation of the proper market value of the lands. That is how, the matter came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Deogarh. The claimants examined two witnesses and did not produce any document. The appellant-State did not adduce any evidence. Considering the evidence and the circumstances available in the case, the referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 12,772.71 and by using 16 multiplier under the capitalization method assessed that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,04,363.36. Besides the value of the lands, learned Civil Judge also held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to Rs. 60,000/- for their acquired house and Rs. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/- for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal. Mr. 10,000/- for their cow-shed, Rs. 40,000/- for change of their residence and they are also entitled to get Rs. 21,200/- for the standing trees. Thus, in all a compensation of Rs. 3,35,400/- along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended Act was awarded. The said award of the referral Court is under challenge in this appeal. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State submits that the award is highly excessive and is not in consonance with the evidence as well as the settled position of law. According to him, at best 12 multiplier should have been adopted on the annual income of the agricultural land. In support of his contention he relies on the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another, AIR 1996 SC 106 . He also submits that because the award by the Collector was before the cut off date of the Amended Act and the award of the Civil Court was after the cut off date, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefits of Sec. 23(1A) of the amended Act. Ms. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants supports the impugned award and maintains that use of 16 multi¬plier was proper and grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended L.A.Act was also justified. P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence have described the nature of the land, type and quantity of crops they used to get and the value thereof. These evidence have been discussed and analysed in details by learned referral Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment. So, there is no scope of saying that the estimate of annual income from the acquired land is not in accordance with the evidence. Moreover, an annual income of Rs. 12,772.71 paise from Ac. 10.21 decimals of land cannot be termed as unreasonable. However, the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gur¬charan Singh and another (supra) have ruled that while assessing the value of agricultural land under capitalization method, multiplier of more than 12 is not permissible. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multi¬plier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. The said ratio has been adopted by this Court in various cases. So use of 16 multi¬plier in the present case was not proper. 12 multiplier would have been just and reasonable. Once 12 multiplier is used, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 12,772.71 x 12 = Rs. 1,33,272.52. So, for the acquired lands the claimants would be entitled to the aforesaid amount. The assessment of the value of the house and cowshed have been done in the modest manner and the same is also not under serious challenge. The valuation of the house and cowshed are, therefore, accepted. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for change of residence is also reasonable and is accepted. So far as the valuation of the trees is concerned, law is settled that once the market value of the land is assessed by capitalization method, the income and the over all value of the standing trees cannot be again taken into consideration and that at best the fuel-wood value of those trees is to be granted. In the present case Mahul trees, Jamu trees, Sal trees, palm trees, country apple trees, Jada trees, Sajana trees, Tentuli trees numbering more than 51 were thereon the acquired lands. The fuel wood value of such sizable big trees can never be less than Rs. 21,200/-. So grant of compensation for the trees was also reasonable. So far the statutory benefits are concerned, it has already been clarified in the cases of Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933 ; K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1995 SC 1012 ; S.A.Jain College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana and another (1995) 3 SCC 74 ; State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and anoth¬er, AIR 1992 SC 473 and in the case of Arjuna Sethi v. L.A.Collector, Cuttack 85 (1998) CLT 742 that if the award of the Collector is before 13.4.1982, but the award of the Civil Court in reference under Sec. 18 of the Act is after 13.4.1982, then claimant would be entitled to benefits under Sec. 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act. In the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 5.2.1981 which was before the cut off date, but the award of the Civil Court was on 5.5.1999, which is after the cut off date. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Sec. 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the amended Act, but would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part on contest. No costs. Appeal allowed in part.