JUDGMENT B.S. Patil, J.— These seven appeals are filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Athani, challenging the common judgment passed by the Reference Court awarding compensation uniformly at the rate of Rs. 1,90,000/.- per acre treating these lands as sugarcane growing lands. The claimants have flied Cross Objections in all these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. Both the appeals and the cross objections are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts as are clear from the judgment under challenge are that the claimants in these seven appeals are the owners of various lands. For the sake of convenience, the details of survey numbers, the place where the lands are situated and the extent of lands acquired can be usefully extracted in a tabular form as under: Appeal No. LAC Nos. R.S. Nos. Extent of land acquired Village Taluk MFA No. 12195/2006 361/04 229/2 1A 7 1/2G Zunzar wadi Athani MFA No. 12196/2006 360/04 175/2 181/2+3 +4 17G 14G -'- -'- MFA No. 12197/2006 364/04 170/1A 1A -'- -'- MFA No. 12199/2006 369/04 213/01 12G -"- -"- MFA No. 12200/2006 368/04 184/3B 18G -"- -"- MFA No. 12201/2006 367/04 156/1A 2006/2C 9G 13G -"- -"- MFA No. 12202/2006 366/04 245/2 245/3 245/4 7G 11G 9G -"- -"- 3. All these lands are situated in Zunjurwad village of Athani Taluk, Belgaum District. The lands were acquired by a Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on 15.03.2003 as they were submerged in the backwater of Upper Krishna Project" at Almatti. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed a common award in respect of several lands including the acquired lands awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,23,969/- per acre for irrigated lands and Rs. 42,4517- per acre for dry lands. 4. The claimants filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference of their disputes for adjudication of the correct market value payable. On reference, the parties have led evidence. The Reference Court has determined the compensation in respect of lands involved in all these appeals at Rs. 1,90,000/ - per acre recording a finding that all these lands were irrigated lands where sugarcane crop was grown. On reference, the parties have led evidence. The Reference Court has determined the compensation in respect of lands involved in all these appeals at Rs. 1,90,000/ - per acre recording a finding that all these lands were irrigated lands where sugarcane crop was grown. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Reference Court has referred to the evidence of D.W. 1 - the Special Land Acquisition Officer who has stated in his cross-examination that the acquired lands were situated on the bank of Krishna River. He has further stated that the land owners of Savadi, Zunjurwad, Shirahatti village used to grow sugarcane crops with the help of Krishna River water. The Reference Court has further taken care to refer to the entries in the record of rights pertaining to these lands which were produced and marked, wherein the crop grown was mentioned as sugarcane. In such circumstances, the Reference Court has held that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in a sum of Rs. 42,451/- was too meagre and that the lands could not have been valued by the Land Acquisition Officer treating them as dry lands. 5. The claimants have produced the yield Notification pertaining to sugarcane crop for the years 1998-99 till 2004-05 as per Ex.P23. They have also produced the price list of the sugarcane issued by Nandi Cooperative Sugar Factory, Bijapur District, as per Ex.P24-A. This price list pertains to the years 1992-93 till 2004-05. The Reference Court has discussed the Yield Notification and the price list at paragraph- 19 of the judgment and has come to the conclusion that as per the yields statistic furnished, the farmers of Athani used to grow sugarcane in the range of 50 to 52 tonnes during 1999-2000 till 2003-04. It has also pointed out that as per the price list, the price of sugarcane was at the rate of Rs. 882/ - for 2000-01, Rs. 868/- for 2001-02 and Rs. 957/- for 2002-03. It has therefore observed that the average price of sugarcane as on the date of the Notification would come to Rs. 902/-. But while calculating the market value, the Reference Court persuaded itself to take the yield as 42 tonnes per acre and multiplies it by Rs. 902/ - per tonne and arrives at Rs. 37,884/-, per acre as income. Deducting 50% towards the cost of cultivation, the income is arrived at Rs. 18,942/-. 902/-. But while calculating the market value, the Reference Court persuaded itself to take the yield as 42 tonnes per acre and multiplies it by Rs. 902/ - per tonne and arrives at Rs. 37,884/-, per acre as income. Deducting 50% towards the cost of cultivation, the income is arrived at Rs. 18,942/-. Applying the multiplier of 10, the market value is arrived at Rs. 1,89,420/-rounded off to Rs. 1,90,000/-. 6. The Reference Court has further held that in similar cases the High Court had confirmed the award of Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre in M.F.A. No. 2773/2005 disposed of on 21.06.2005 arising out of LAC No. 204/ 2003. Apart from awarding the statutory sums payable, namely 30% solatium on the enhanced market value and 12% additional market value from the date of 4(1) Notification to the date of award, interest as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 9% and 15% is awarded. 7. In the operative portion of the judgment at paragraph-4, the Reference Court has held that apart from the amount awarded towards statutory sums the claimants 'are also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced market value from the date of dispossession i.e.. 14.08.2002 for the first year and 15% p.a. for subsequent years, till its realisation.... 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant contends that the Reference Court has erred in fixing the market value at Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre and also in awarding interest at 9% and 15% as the case may be with effect from the date of dispossession losing sight of the fact that the acquisition proceedings were initiated only on 15.03.2003 by issuing 4(1) Notification. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anr. v. Hemanagouda and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 443 to contend that interest for pre Section 4(1) Notification period could not have been awarded. 9. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anr. v. Hemanagouda and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 443 to contend that interest for pre Section 4(1) Notification period could not have been awarded. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants who has filed the cross objections in all these cases places reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 5262/ 2005 connected with Cross Objection 418/2007 disposed of on 28.01.2008 and contends that in respect of the lands situated in the same Zunjurwad village acquired for Upper Krishna Project under Preliminary Notification dated 18.11.1998 where Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre, this Court enhanced the same and fixed it at Rs. 2,37,500/-, He therefore contends that the claimants in these cases are entitled for higher compensation than what is fixed at Rs. 2,37,500/ - regard being had to the difference in the two dates of Preliminary Notification. He submits that if escalation at 5% is allowed from 1998 to 2003, the claimants will be entitled to much higher compensation than what is fixed at Rs. 2,37,500/- rounded off to Rs. 2,35,000/- by the Division Bench in M.F.A. No. 5262/2005. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire materials on record. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 1,90,000/- is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case? (ii) Whether the Reference Court was right and justified in awarding interest with effect from the date of dispossession which is anterior to the date of Preliminary Notification? 11. As regards the first point, the materials on record in the form of oral and documentary evidence and as found by the Reference Court clearly disclose that the yield of sugarcane per acre during the period from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 ranged from 50 to 53 tonnes. The relevant year of Preliminary Notification i.e. 2002-03. The Reference Court ought to have taken 50 tonnes as basis for determining the market value, instead it has taken 42 tonnes as the yield of the sugarcane which has no basis. 12. The relevant year of Preliminary Notification i.e. 2002-03. The Reference Court ought to have taken 50 tonnes as basis for determining the market value, instead it has taken 42 tonnes as the yield of the sugarcane which has no basis. 12. Counsel appearing for the claimants is right and justified in contending that the Reference Court has not acted on any basis in this regard. Moreover, the Yield Notification produced at Ex.P23 supports this position. In addition, if the price of the sugarcane per tonne during three years from 2000-0 1 to 2002-03 at the rate of Rs. 905/-, Rs. 905/- and Rs. 810/ - as is clear from column No. 6 of Ex.P24A is considered, the average price, will come to Rs. 873.33. The Reference Court has wrongly taken the prevailing price for the years 2001-02 to 2002-03 as mentioned in column No. 11 of Ex.P24-A which reflects the SMP rate per metric tonne, whereas column No. 7 reflects the cane price per metric tonne. Even if the cane price as mentioned in column No. 6 is taken, the average of three years would come to Rs. 873.33 as referred to herein above which according to me is the just and appropriate way of finding out the correct value of the sugarcane grown in the land. 13. If calculation is made on this basis for 50 tonnes at the rate of Rs. 873.33, the amount will work out to Rs. 43.666.50. If 50% is deducted towards the cost of cultivation, the amount will come to Rs. 21,833.25. Applying the multiplier of 10, if the net income is calculated, the amount comes to Rs. 2,18,332.50 rounded off to Rs. 2,18,000/-. 14. As regards the interest awarded from the date of dispossession which is prior to the date of 4(1) Notification, in view of the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by L. Rs. v. DDA and Ors. (2004 SAR (Civil) 362), it is clear that the claimants are not entitled for payment of interest from the date of dispossession if the date of dispossession is prior to issue of 4(1) Notification. It is clearly and categorically held in R.L. Jain's case that the Court has no power to award interest for the period anterior to the publication of 4(1) Notification. It is clearly and categorically held in R.L. Jain's case that the Court has no power to award interest for the period anterior to the publication of 4(1) Notification. In that view of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to this extent requires to be set aside. It is needless to observe that it will be open for the claimants to seek damages, if they are so advised in accordance with law before the appropriate forum including before the Land Acquisition Officer. 15. Although learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ports, Mangalore v. Kalist Monterio (1973 (2) Mys.L.J. 333) to contend that sugarcane crop cannot be grown every year on the same land and the duration of the crop is also more than one year, as the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer itself discloses that the farmers were growing sugarcane by using water from the river and that the RTC extracts disclosed that as on the date of 4(1) Notification the claimants were growing sugarcane in the land, the Reference Court was right and justified in taking the sugarcane crop as basis for arriving at the market value by applying the capitalization method. 16. It is well established that the value of the land should be assessed by taking into account the best use to which the land can be put to. If the land in question was put to use for growing sugarcane at the relevant time and if there is no other evidence to the contrary, it cannot be said that the Reference Court committed an error in assessing the market value on that basis. Therefore, the contention urged by the learned Government Pleader taking support from the decision referred to herein above cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly because the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the claimants/cross-objectors has applied the same method as is applied by the Reference Court in this case and has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- for the lands situated in the same village, but acquired by way of Preliminary Notification dated 18.11.1998. 2,38,000/- for the lands situated in the same village, but acquired by way of Preliminary Notification dated 18.11.1998. If the said judgment is taken as a basis, as is asserted by the learned Counsel for the claimants, and provision for escalation is made, the amount per acre will be in the range of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The said judgment is hot taken as a. basis in this case as there is no material produced by the claimants to show that the lands involved in MFA No. 5262/ 2005 and the lands involved in the present case are comparable in their soil, texture, facilities and in all other respects. In fact, no such evidence is led before the Reference Court in this connection. In addition, average price of the sugarcane per tonne only for the relevant year is taken in that case by taking the yield at 50 tonnes. 17. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the absence of clear proof that the acquired lands enjoyed the same benefit as the lands involved in MFA No. 5262/2005, this Court has to be guided by the evidence on record to arrive at a just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the contentions urged by the learned Government Pleader and the contentions urged by the Cross Objectors need to be noticed only for being rejected. 18. In the result and for the foregoing, all the appeals filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer are partly allowed. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimants ate also partly allowed with costs. The market value payable is determined at Rs. 2,18,000/-. The interest awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of 9% and 15% from the date prior to 4(1) Notification is set aside. It is made clear that the claimants will be entitled for interest only from the date of passing of the award. In all other respects the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting statutory benefits is left undisturbed. It is open to the claimants to move the appropriate forum seeking damages for depriving them of their possession of the lands before issuing the 4(1) Notification.