Judgment :- Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, in O.P.No.1 of 1999, dated 05-03-2001. 1. 2. The subject matter of the aforesaid reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity 'the Act') is for an extent of Ac.18.39 cents of dry land in Sy. Nos.25/2, 26/2, 4 to 7, 31/16, 1/2B and 31/3A, situated at Venkannapalem, Makevasapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. An award No.24 of 1983, dated 24-06-1983, was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, after the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued and published on 05-08-1981, that the land was acquired for the purpose of Yeleru Left Bank Canal. The possession of the land was taken on 24-09-1982. The aforesaid land comprises of a coconut tope in an extent of Ac.3.84 cents and the rest of the land is with scattered trees, ground well and motor-shed etc. To the extent of the coconut tope, covering an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, and referable to Sy. No.26/4, 5 and 7, the land acquisition officer has fixed the total compensation at the rate of Rs.65,147/-, and the same is enhanced by the reference Court at Rs.5,66,400/-. Further, an extent of Ac.3.42 cents of dry land, covered by Sy. No.26 and 26/2, was awarded total compensation of Rs.5,181-30 ps. by the land acquisition officer and the same was confirmed by the reference Court. To the extent of another Ac.0.27 cents consisting of 27 scattered trees, the reference Court has granted Rs.81,000/-. Further, the remaining dry land of Ac.10.86 cents, the reference Court has granted Rs.2,10,060/- as against to the aggregate of Rs.17,974-95 ps. granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. In addition to the value of the trees in the aforesaid Ac.11.13 cents an award was granted at Rs.1,146/-. Further, with regard to the two big palmyrah trees in Sy. Nos.26/2 and 26/7, the land acquisition officer has granted at Rs.16/-as against which, the reference Court granted Rs.50/-. Further, the value of the well was granted at Rs.5,457/- by the land acquisition officer and motor shed at Rs.950/-. The same was confirmed by the reference Court. Thus, as against Rs.95,882.25 ps. totally granted by the land acquisition officer for the land and trees on the entire extent, the reference Court has granted compensation to an aggregate of Rs.8,69,098.30 ps. The same was confirmed by the reference Court. Thus, as against Rs.95,882.25 ps. totally granted by the land acquisition officer for the land and trees on the entire extent, the reference Court has granted compensation to an aggregate of Rs.8,69,098.30 ps. The enhancement in question under this appeal, is, therefore, Rs.7,73,216.05 ps., as stated above. 2. 3. We have heard the learned Advocate General for the State and Sri D.V.Sita Rama Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Sri V.C.H. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. 4. Though the enhancement, on various other categories as stated above, was made by the reference Court, the main thrust of the contention of the learned Advocate General was with respect to the manner in which the reference Court has awarded and assessed the compensation for the trees. The learned Advocate General has relied upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which will be referred to herein after, and contended that even if the method of assessing the value of the fruit bearing trees as adopted by the reference Court, is assumed to be correct, for the purpose of capitalization method, the multiplier adopted by the reference Court is very high and unrealistic. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the multiplier above 8' or at best, 10' can be applied but not at the rate of 20' as adopted by the reference Court. 4. 5. With regard to the rest of the enhancement, however, there is not much of controversy and the primary question that is argued and which falls for consideration is whether the reference Court was justified in applying the multiplier of 20' to assess the value of the fruit bearing trees. 5. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has submitted that the criteria adopted by the reference Court is in terms and accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MADRAS v. BROTHER JOSEPH AIR 1973 S.C. 2463 = 1973 (2) S.C.C. 504 as well as the decision of this Court in GOPU VENKATESWARA RAO v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 1988 (1) ALT 699, and submits that the multiplier 20' applied by the reference Court is quite justified and does not warrant any interference. The learned counsel would also contend that the land acquisition officer himself, under the award, had adopted a multiplier of 14' and in any case, the claimant cannot be at a disadvantage, by applying multiplier 8' or 10' as contended by the State as stated above. 6. 7. The sole question for consideration is as to what is the market value of lands covered by a) coconut tope covering Ac.3.84 cents and b) 27 scattered coconut trees on remaining land? 7. 8. So far the evidence on record is concerned, the claimant has examined as many as 14 witnesses, whereas, for the State, R.W.1, who was the Deputy Tahsildar and was associated with the land acquisition officer during the award proceedings, is examined. The claimant has also filed and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-17, whereas the State has got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. In addition to that, Exs.X-1 to X-6 were also marked by third parties, who were examined as witnesses. The trial Court has elaborately considered the evidence on record. Since the nature of evidence and the conclusions reached by the reference Court are not seriously controverted by the State in this appeal, it is not necessary to deal with the said evidence, in detail, in this appeal and the gist of the same will be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal. 9. While P.W.1 is the claimant's son, P.W.2 was said to be his farm servant. The trial Court, however, rejected the evidence of P.W.2 as not believable. P.Ws.3 to 7 are witnesses who have spoken about the several agreements of sales, which are filed in the present case, which by themselves have been rejected separately by the reference Court and as such the said evidence is not of much significance. P.W.8 is examined who generally spoke about the yields obtainable from coconut trees. But in the cross-examination he admitted that he did not manage the coconut tope of the claimant at any time and his evidence was found inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.9, claims to be Water Engine Driver of the claimant. His evidence was also not believed by the reference Court, as in the cross-examination, he admitted that he is merely a coolli (farm servant). His evidence is even otherwise not very useful for the claimant. P.W.9, claims to be Water Engine Driver of the claimant. His evidence was also not believed by the reference Court, as in the cross-examination, he admitted that he is merely a coolli (farm servant). His evidence is even otherwise not very useful for the claimant. P.W.10 is a businessman who was examined to speak of the trade in coconuts, which he is alleged to have been dealing with, but there is no evidence that he ever purchased coconuts from claimant and the said evidence was found not of any probative value. P.W.11 was also rejected on the similar grounds as P.W.10. P.Ws.12 to 14 speak about the sugarcane crop and other products, which are produced on the remaining land of Ac.11.13 cents, other than the coconut tope. Their evidence and analysis was also not found accepted by the reference Court. P.W.13, however, is a scientist and is well versed with coconut plantation, produce, and its yield and marketability. He has, after inspection of the claimant's coconut tope, given certificate, Ex.A-15, and according to him, in proper conditions, a coconut tree would yield 350 nuts per year. 8. 10. With regard to the documentary evidence, on behalf of the claimant, Ex.A-1 is a copy of judgment in O.P.No.27 of 1985, relating to the lands situated at Bheemboinapalem, which is nearer to the lands in question. However, the said judgment is admittedly subject matter of an appeal by the State and an appeal by the claimant (details of which are not available to either side) and the reference Court has not taken Ex.A-1 into consideration, as it has not attained finality. Ex.A-2 is an agreement of sale marked by P.W.3, which is unregistered and as such no credence was given to the same by the reference Court. Ex.A-3 is another judgment of reference Court in O.P.No.210 of 1988, regarding which, the claimant himself filed a memo before the reference Court to exclude the said document from consideration. Further, Exs.A-4 to A-13 are Field Measurement Books marked by P.W.1, but they are not of any relevance for determining the market value. Ex.A-14 is a certificate along with Ex.X-2, copy of the annual administrative report of the same. The said document speaks of the value of the coconuts in the market during March, 1981 and according to the said document the value of 1000 coconuts is Rs.1250/-. Ex.A-14 is a certificate along with Ex.X-2, copy of the annual administrative report of the same. The said document speaks of the value of the coconuts in the market during March, 1981 and according to the said document the value of 1000 coconuts is Rs.1250/-. Ex.A-15 is a certificate issued by the scientist/horticulturist, P.W.13, which is already referred to above. Ex.A-16, certificate, issued by the Managing Director of the Etikoppaka Cooperative Agricultural Industrial Society Limited, relating to sugarcane prices prevailing at that time. Ex.A-17 is an endorsement issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makavaripalem, that adangals are not available for giving certified copy and issued to the claimants. 9. 11. So far as the 'B' series documents are concerned, Ex.B-1 is the statement of the claimant before the land acquisition officer, which is accepted by P.W.1, during his evidence. Ex.B-2 is the award, dated 24-06-1983, whereas Exs.B-3 and B-4 are the panchanamas of the land in question. Ex.X-1 is an agreement of sale, which is already referred to above. Ex.X-2 is an annual administrative report marked through P.W.11, already referred to above. Exs.X-3 and X-4 are the various G.Os of the Government relating to the prices of sugarcane for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively. Ex.X-5 is an endorsement of Assistant Director of Marketing Committing, Visakhapatnam and Ex.X-6 is the Statement of wholesale prices of dry chilies during January 1979 to December 1981. 10. 12. Out of aforesaid entire evidence, the reference Court has taken into consideration Ex.B-1, statement of claimant filed before the land acquisition officer, particularly, with reference to the yield and income which they were getting from the fruit bearing trees, as well as the evidence of P.W.13, scientist/horticulturist, and his certificate, Ex.A-15, and also the panchanamas, Exs.B-3 and B-4, together with the evidence of R.W.1, and on consideration thereof, the reference Court has divided the entire land into three parts for the purpose of awarding and assessing compensation as follows: 1) Coconut tope to the extent of Ac.3.84 cents. 2) Ac.0.27 cents consisting 27 scattered coconut trees, and 3) Ac.10.86 cents of dry land together with some small and medium trees thereon. 1. 13. The aforesaid three heads covered the entire extent as under acquisition, apart from two big palmyrah trees, a well and a motor shed. 2) Ac.0.27 cents consisting 27 scattered coconut trees, and 3) Ac.10.86 cents of dry land together with some small and medium trees thereon. 1. 13. The aforesaid three heads covered the entire extent as under acquisition, apart from two big palmyrah trees, a well and a motor shed. With respect to item-1 i.e. coconut tope, covering Ac.3.84 cents, the reference Court found, on the basis of evidence on record that, for 189 fruit bearing trees, the maximum yield per year would be 34,020 nuts and the value of each nut on evidence was fixed at Rs.1/- Thereby the total value of the coconut per year is Rs.34,020/-. The reference Court thereafter deducted the expenses towards watchman, manure and watering charges etc., separately, calculating and aggregated to Rs.5,700/-per year, and the net value was arrived at Rs.28,320/-. Thus, the value of the fruits per acre works out to Rs.7,375/-(taking into consideration that the net value of Rs.28,320/- with reference to entire extent of Ac.3.84 cents.) 2. 14. The reference Court as stated above applied multiplier of 20' and calculated the value of coconut tope at Rs.1,47,500/- per acre, and for an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, therefore, works out to Rs.5,66,400/-. 3. 15. Withregard to the second category, as mentioned above, the total dry land acquired is Ac.14.55 cents out of which, an extent of Ac.3.42 cents in Sy. No.26/2 is beedu (i.e., unfit for cultivation) was assessed at Rs.1550/- per acre. Therefore, it works out to Rs.5,181-30ps. The rest of the land was divided by the reference Court being land yielding paddy and arrived at the rate of each paddy bag of 75 kg. at Rs.86/-. Similarly for 27 scattered coconut trees, arrived at total Rs.14,000/-. For an extent of Ac.10.86 cents of dry land, applying 15' years multiplier, the reference Court awarded total amount of Rs.2,10,060/-, as mentioned above. The market value of remaining dry land of Ac.14.55 cents excluding Ac.0.27 cents, covered by scattered coconut trees, the value of net income adopted was Rs.4050/- and adopting 20 years of multiplier, the market value arrived at by the reference Court is Rs.81,000/- and so far as the well is concerned, the valuation, as stated for the well as well as the shed was fixed by the land acquisition officer, under award, Ex.B-2, was confirmed. Similarly, the compensation worked for by the claimant for severance was also rejected. 4. 16. Similarly, the compensation worked for by the claimant for severance was also rejected. 4. 16. The question of adopting correct multiplier has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions, which were cited by the learned Advocate General, reported in STATE OF HARYANA v. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANTOHER 1995 Supp (2) S.C.C. 637, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. SATYAGOPAL ROY AND OTHERS (2002) 3 S.C.C. 527 , ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELLARY (2005) 9 S.C.C. 662 and LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. v. KAMADANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANOTHER (2007) 3 S.C.C. 526. 1. 17. As mentioned above, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Brother Joseph's case (1 supra) as well as Gopu Venkateswara Rao's case (2 supra) relied upon by the reference Court. It is no doubt true that in Brother Joseph's case (1 supra), the capitalization method of 20 years' purchase was accepted by the Supreme Court while approving said capitalization method. On facts of that case, three topes of coconuts and oranges were involved in that case, on an extent of Ac.1.59 cents, while the capitalization method adopted was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in Gopu Venkateswara Rao's case 2 supra) has also followed the Supreme Court's judgment. However, in Gurcharan Singh's case (3 supra), the Supreme Court considered the proper multiplier with regard to fruit bearing trees, and it was held that the proper multiplier to be applied would be 8' for fruit plantations and 12' years' multiplier for agricultural lands. In Satyagopal Roy's case (4 supra) also multiplier 8' was approved following the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh's case (3 supra). 2. 18. It is also note worthy that the decision relied upon by the reference Court and the learned counsel for the respondent in Brother Joseph's case (1 supra), were noticed by the Supreme Court in Airport Authority's case (4 supra). It was held in paragraph-15 that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the award on the ground that the compensation awarded was meager. It was held in paragraph-15 that in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the award on the ground that the compensation awarded was meager. In S.T. Pompanna Setty's case (5 supra) as against the multiplier 15' by the reference Court which was affirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that in no case, the multiplier higher than 10' can be applied, following the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS v. RAMA RANA AND OTHERS 1997 (2) S.C.C. 693 and other decisions. In Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao's case (6 supra), which is latest at point of time, wherein the decisions referred to above were noticed, the Supreme Court held that multiplier to be applied in such cases should not exceed more than 10', which is a consistent view of the Supreme Court. 3. 19. Inthe light of the above legal position, therefore, the valuation fixed by the reference Court by adopting multiplier 20' cannot be sustained. Consequently, therefore, with respect to coconut tope covering the extent of Ac.3.84 cents, if a multiplier 10' is adopted to the value of Rs.7375/-per acre, arrived at by the reference Court, the value of the coconut tope of Ac.3.84 cents would work out to Rs.2,83,200/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty three thousand and two hundred only) as against Rs,5,66,400/- granted by reference Court. The point (a) is answered accordingly. 20. Point (b):- Excluding Ac.3.84 cents under point (a) as referred above, the balance extent of Ac.14.55 cents is divided into two parts viz., one an extent of Ac.3.42 cents which is undisputedly beedu land (uncultivated). The compensation granted by the land acquisition officer assessed its value at Rs.5,181/- was confirmed by the reference Court and the same is not seriously opposed in this appeal by the appellant. Therefore, to that extent no interference is called for. 4. 21. After excluding the said Ac.3.42 cents, within the remaining Ac.11.13 cents, we have 27 scattered coconut trees occupying one cent each. The reference Court, therefore, divided the said Ac.11.13 cents into the 27 cents, covering scattered coconut trees and Ac.10.86 cents cultivable land, and assessed on the basis of value of the paddy produced. Thereupon, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the paddy produced per acre is 30 bags, each of 75 kg, on the basis of Ex.X.15 and other evidence on record. Thereupon, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the paddy produced per acre is 30 bags, each of 75 kg, on the basis of Ex.X.15 and other evidence on record. The reference Court has arrived at a value of each bag at the relevant point of time at Rs.86/- per bag and calculated the net income after deducting expenditure at Rs.14004/- per year. By applying multiplier of 15', has arrived at the value of the said Ac.10.86 cents at Rs.2,10,060/-. This aspect of the valuation of the reference Court is, therefore, in terms and in accordance with the evidence on record and the appellant has not been able to substantiate any grounds to take a different view. The finding of the reference Court in that regard, is, therefore, confirmed. 5. 22. This leaves us to the last aspect viz., the compensation awarded by the reference Court to the extent of 27 scattered coconut trees. As mentioned above, the reference Court has taken approximately one cent of land as consumed in each of the said coconut tree. The yield of the coconuts and the value thereof, was already assessed by the reference Court while considering the value of coconut tope for Ac.3.84 cents, under the point (a), referred to above. The same value applies with respect to these 27 coconut scattered trees also. However, the said value works out to Rs.4,050/- for 27 coconut trees per year. Applying the multiplier 20', the reference Court had granted compensation at Rs.81,000/-for the aforesaid 27 coconut trees. As discussed under point (a) above, if the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 10', the proper compensation payable on this account would be Rs.40,500/-, it could reflect just and true market value. The point (b) framed above, is accordingly answered. 1. 23. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds to the extent of a) granting compensation for the coconut tope of Ac.3.84 cents at Rs.2,83,200/-(Rupees two lakhs eighty three thousand and two hundred only) as against Rs.5,66,400/-granted by the reference Court and b) with respect to 27 scattered coconut trees, the compensation granted Rs.40,500/-(Rupees forty thousand and five hundred only) as against Rs.81,000/- assessed by the reference Court. 2. 24. The appeal accordingly is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.