JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J: This appeal is directed against common Judgment dated 28.02.05 and the separate award in LAC No.6/04, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikodi. By the said Award, the reference petition having been allowed in part, it has been held that, the' " claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. 2. The facts in brief are that, a piece of land bearing R.S. No.95/1 measuring 0.38 guntas situated at Kurali Village of Chikodi Tq., was acquired, for construction of Nidori Branch Canal. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was issued on 27.02.97 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette. After completion of the proceedings under the Act and after observing all the formalities, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre to the claimants vide his Award dated 11.10.2000. The claimants received the amount of compensation under protest and submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act, requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The matter was accordingly referred to the Civil Court. The Reference Court considering the evidence on record has held that, the land acquired is of superior quality bagayath land. Considering the documents produced in evidence, it has held that, sugarcane was grown in the acquired land and that, the market value of the acquired land can be determined with reference to the yield of sugarcane at 40 tonnes per acre. Taking into consideration the price-list Ex.P10, for the year 1997-98, the price of a quintal of jaggery was taken at Rs. 1,500/- and the income was determined at Rs. 60,000/-. 50% of the income was deducted towards cost of cultivation and by applying the multiplier of 10, market value was determined at Rs. 3,00,000/- par acre. The statutory benefits have been allowed thereon. The said Judgment / Award has been challenged in the present appeal by the State as excessive. . 3. \'le have heard Sri C.S. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate; for the appellant and Sri S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants. 4. 3,00,000/- par acre. The statutory benefits have been allowed thereon. The said Judgment / Award has been challenged in the present appeal by the State as excessive. . 3. \'le have heard Sri C.S. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate; for the appellant and Sri S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the respondents/claimants. 4. The learned Government Advocate contended that, enhancement of award made by the Reference Court is arbitrary and illegal, in taking the yield as 40 tonnes of sugarcane per acre, in the absence of any documentary evidence and the finding that 1 tonne of sugarcane will yield 1 quintal of jaggery is without any proof. It was contended that, the cost of cultivation deducted at 50% only is low, considering the fact that, it is not only the expenditure incurred towards cultivation of sugarcane, but also the further expenditure incurred towards the preparation of jaggery, which should have been taken into account and thereby, the percentage of deduction ought to have been much more. It is further contended that, the determination of market value by the Reference Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act, settled principles of law, probabilities of the case and consequently, the amount awarded is liable to be set aside and the Award made by the LAO deserves to be restored. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that, having regard to the rival contentions of the parties and keeping in view, the evidence on record, Reference Court has determined the just market value arid has enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants and no interference is called for. Learned Counsel brought to our notice, the Judgment dated 12.02.97 passed in MFA No.405/97 (The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shantagouda Sateppa Magali and Others) to support the finding that, 1 tonne of sugarcane is equivalent to 1 quintal of jaggery and that no separate deduction should be made towards the preparation ofjaggery. Learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment dated 10.03.08 passed in MFA No.6186/05 (The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Vs. Sri Mallappa Dundappa Zhalake) to contend that, no deduction towards the cost of preparation of jaggery by crushing sugarcane can be accepted considering the fact that, 1 tonne of sugarcane can produce 1.00 to 1.40 quintals of jaggery. Learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment dated 10.03.08 passed in MFA No.6186/05 (The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Vs. Sri Mallappa Dundappa Zhalake) to contend that, no deduction towards the cost of preparation of jaggery by crushing sugarcane can be accepted considering the fact that, 1 tonne of sugarcane can produce 1.00 to 1.40 quintals of jaggery. Learned Counsel further contended that, the record of the case has been rightly appreciated by Reference Court and the present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival contentions. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view, that the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. 7. In the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Rama Rana and Others, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 693 , the decision was, awarding of compensation to the claimant on yield basis. It was found that, there was no sufficient evidence as to the income from agriculture and the Reference Court had noticed that, witnesses had exaggerated the yield. Reference Court determined the market value after deducting 1/3rd towards cultivation expenses and awarded compensation on that basis. When appealed in the High Court, the appeal was dismissed and the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while, allowing the appeal and reducing the amount of compensation, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it is common knowledge that, expenditure is involved in raising and harvesting the crop and on average, 50% of the value of the crop would be spent towards cultivation expenses and thus, deduction of 1/3rd was improper in determining the compensation also on the basis of the yield and Apex Court has applied the multiplier of 10. In the instant case, there is no objection from the claimants for the deduction of 50% towards cultivation cost is concerned, but their opposition is only towards the deduction of more than 50%, by taking into consideration the separate cost for preparation of jaggery, which is the bone of contention of the appellant, which contends that, the cultivation cost of 50% at best could only be towards the raising of sugarcane and cannot be inclusive of the cost of preparation of jaggery, which also involves substantial expenditure and is separate from the cultivation cost of sugarcane. 7.1 In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. 7.1 In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, reported in AIR 1959 SC 429 , it has been: held that; In awarding compensation under the Act, the Court has. to "'ascertain the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was held that, there were several methods of valuation Such as, (1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. 7.2 In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Others, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 120 , it has been, held that, when capitalisation method for valuation is• applied, proper multiplier could be 10. 7.3 In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Malik Sartaj Wall Khan & Others, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 660 , it has been held that, the computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 10 could be applied. 7.4 Thus, the law is well-settled to the effect that, normally, in cases of acquisition of agricultural lands, where compensation is awarded on yield basis, to be proper and appropriate, multiplier of 10 should be applied. 8. Considering the rival contentions and in view of the above, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether, the Reference Court has committed an error in not separately deducting the amount towards cost of preparation of jaggery? (ii) Whether, the Reference Court is justified in determining the market value of the acquired land and in awarding Rs. 3,00,000/per acre? Re. Point No. (i): 9. The nature of land and sugarcane crop being grown on it prior to acquisition, is not under challenge. The Reference Court has taken the yield of sugarcane at 40 tonnes per acre and has concluded that, a tonne of sugarcane will yield 1 quintal of jaggery and the price of per quintal of jaggery based on Ex.P 10 during 1997-98 was Rs:1,500/-. 50% of the income has been deducted towards cost of cultivation. The Reference Court has taken the yield of sugarcane at 40 tonnes per acre and has concluded that, a tonne of sugarcane will yield 1 quintal of jaggery and the price of per quintal of jaggery based on Ex.P 10 during 1997-98 was Rs:1,500/-. 50% of the income has been deducted towards cost of cultivation. It is not clear from the impugned Judgment, whether, the Reference Court considered the cost of cultivation to be inclusive of cost of preparation of jaggery. According to the learned Counsel for the claimants, the yield of sugarcane taken by the Reference Court is not correct. Learned Counsel referred to the contents of a book titled 'KABBU' written by Sri S.C. Kubusad - Retired Joint Director of Department of Agriculture and published by Kubusad Prakashana, Dharwad, according to which, by crushing 1 tonne of sugarcane, about 1.00 to 1040 quintals of jaggery could be prepared and the Reference Court, by taking the yield of jaggery as 1 quintal, has committed serious error and it ought to have been taken the yield as more than 1 quintal per tonne of sugarcane. In MFA No.6186/2005 (supra), considering the contentions and with reference to the said book, it was held that, since the Reference Court took the yield of sugarcane at a low rate of 40 tonnes per acre and also took the yield of jaggery at minimum of 1 quintal per tonne of sugarcane, there would not be any justification for the Reference Court in making further deduction of any amount towards cost of preparation of jaggery in determining the market value of the acquired land. 9.1. We have perused the said book 'KABBU' by Sri S.C. Kubusad, who is holder of B.Sc. degree in agriculture. He has not done any research work. It has been held in the case of Kantaben Manibhai Amin and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, reported in 1989 (4) SCC 662 that, the opinion of a graduate in agriculture was not an expert evidence, on the basis of which, the Judge could have validly computed the income for the purpose of capitalisation. Consequently, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the said book is not of any assistance and cannot be taken as an expert evidence. 9.2 In MFA NoA05/97 (supra), the LAO had awarded compensation treating the lands as dry lands. Consequently, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the said book is not of any assistance and cannot be taken as an expert evidence. 9.2 In MFA NoA05/97 (supra), the LAO had awarded compensation treating the lands as dry lands. On a reference to Civil Court, evidence was led to show that in the lands, sugarcane was grown. Adopting the capitalisation method, the Reference Court ~warded Rs.60,000/- per acre which was questioned in appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer. The contention canvassed was that, while capitalising the value of the lands, the Reference Court has erred in taking jaggery value and not the crop value of sugarcane. Noticing that, the Reference Court having found that, sugarcane as such cannot be sold and on the broad probabilities, taking into consideration the jaggery that yielded out of the crop that was grown and fixed that 1 tonne of sugarcane will produce 1 quintal of jaggery which was on the basis of information obtained from the agricultural Department, it was held that, it is rather difficult in matters of the nature to be mathematically accurate in evaluating the yield of jaggery that may emerge from the sugarcane that is crushed and the Reference Court had no other option but to fix the same on the basis of broad probabilities of the case. Thus, it is clear that, what has been decided is that, 1 tonne of sugarcane will produce 1 quintal of jaggery and in view of the non-availability of evidence for sale of sugarcane directly, the Award of the Reference Court was not interfered with. 9.3 In MFA No.6186/05 (supra), it has been held as follows: - "No doubt, it is true, that the respondent-claimant must have incurred some expenditure in addition to the cost of cultivation (which Came to be deducted at 50% of the gross annual income) towards preparing of jaggery by crushing each tonne of sugarcane." Despite holding so, the contention regarding deduction being the expenditure incurred towards the preparation of jaggery was not accepted, by relying upon the book 'KABBU' written by Sri S.C. Kubusad, stated supra, with regard to the quantity of yield of sugarcane per acre. We have already held that, the views therein cannot be taken as an expert evidence, since, the author was only a graduate in agriculture, had not done any research work and has no supporting material therein and hence, the views expressed in the book cannot be taken as an expert's opinion. The claimants/ respondents have not produced any acceptable evidence to arrive at a conclusion that, in the acquired land, sugarcane more than 40 tonnes per acre was grown prior to its acquisition. The Reference Court has also not held that more than 40 tonnes of sugarcane per acre was grown by the claimants in the land. 9.4 As already noticed, the Reference Court has not determined the market value with reference to the price of sugarcane, but has determined with reference to the cost of jaggery in terms of Ex.PI0 the price list for 1997-98 i.e., cost of jaggery per quintal being Rs.l,500/-. Had the Reference Court determined the market value with reference to the sugarcane price at the relevant point of time, on the basis of price fixed by the Government or any sugar factory and if had effected 50% deduction towards expenditure for growing of sugarcane, it would have been justified in allowing 50% deduction only. But the Reference Court has taken the cost of jaggery and not that of the sugarcane. Growing of sugarcane is different from manufacturing of jaggery. A farmer has the option of either supplying the sugarcane grown to a sugar factory and market the same or manufacture jaggery by himself. Manufacturing of jaggery involves additional labour and expenditure, which is separate from the cost of growing sugarcane crop. Hence, the Reference Court has erred in not deducting the amount towards cost of preparation of jaggery. 9.5 On an average, the cost of preparation of jaggery would be Rs. 200/- per quintal. The said cost being an extra cost i.e., in addition to the cost of cultivation of sugarcane, the Reference Court has erred in not including the cost of preparation of jaggery in the total expenditure and the consequential deduction. 9.5 On an average, the cost of preparation of jaggery would be Rs. 200/- per quintal. The said cost being an extra cost i.e., in addition to the cost of cultivation of sugarcane, the Reference Court has erred in not including the cost of preparation of jaggery in the total expenditure and the consequential deduction. 9.6 Since, this Court has consistently taken the view that, yield of sugarcane is 40 tonnes per acre and a tonne of sugarcane will yield a quintal of jaggery, the Reference Court is justified in arriving at a conclusion that 40 quintals of jaggery could be produced from sugarcane grown in one acre af land. In terms of the price list Ex.P10, for the period 1997-98, the price of a quintal of jaggery was Rs.l,500/-. As already held, additional expenditure of Rs.2001- has to be incurred for the manufacture of one quintal of jaggery. As such, the compensation available to the claimants per acre would be as follows: 40 quintal x Rs.l,500 = Rs.60,000/-. Out of this, not only 50% of cost of cultivation of sugarcane is to be deducted, but also the cost of production of jaggery at the rate of Rs.200/- per quintal. Thus, the total income the claimants would be making is Rs.60,000/-less 50% = Rs.30,000/-less Rs.8,000/- [40 x 200] which• comes to Rs.22,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 10, the total amount would be Rs.2,20,000/- per acre. Consequently, it has to be held that, the Reference Court is not justified In determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, which requires to be modified to Rs.2,20,000/- per acre and hence, the impugned award requires to be modified accordingly. For the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal in part and order as follows: (i) The Award In LAC No.6/04 dated 28.02.05 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikodi, is hereby modified and it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,20,000/- per acre; (ii) The respondents 1 claimants are also held to be entitled to the additional market value and interest as awarded by the Reference Court on the market value of the property determined supra. (iii) Registry is directed to draw the modified Award. (iv) The appellant shall deposit the balance Award amount in terms hereof, in the Reference Court, within a period of 8 weeks from today. No costs.