JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. : This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmagarh in MJC No.32 of 2001 which was initiated on the basis of the petition filed by the present respondents claiming higher compensation u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Orissa by virtue of Notification dated 12.03.1999 acquired Ac.3.40 dec. of land of the respondents for construction of Chahaka Minor Irrigation Projects for which a compensation of Rs.93,681/- was awarded in favour of the claimants, which they received on protest alleging that the compensation was assessed without considering the potentiality and the market value of the acquired land. They, therefore, claimed higher compensation. A reference under Section 18 was made for which the present MJC was registered before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dharmagarh. The appellant, who was the opposite party before the learned Court below denying the allegations made by the claimants contended that the market value of the land in question was assessed properly by taking into account the sale transactions made in nearby village Nuagaon for the year 1997. On considera¬tion of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land in question was agricultural land on which cotton crops was being grown, the average yield from which towards profit cannot be less than Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per acre. Thus applying 16 years multiplier the learned Court below fixed the value of the land at Rs.80,000/- per acre and directed the same to be paid to the claimant-respondents along with sola¬tium, interest and other statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. It is contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the annual yield and income determined by the learned Civil Judge, though may not be improper, yet the fixation of valuation of the land by applying 16 multiplier is legally unsustainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh reported in AIR 1996 SC 109. It is his further submission that as found by the learned trial Court, the similar land of another adjacent land owner which was acquired under the vary same Notification for the very same purpose was valued at Rs.64,000/- per acre by the learned trial Court vide judgment (Ext.2) passed in MJC No.31 of 2001 and therefore, the learned Court below should not have assessed the value at Rs.80,000/- per acre in the present case. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the impugned judgment does not warrant inter¬ference either on facts or on law. 5. It is seen from paragraph-7 of the trial Court judgment that the learned Court below has taken note of the fact that similar nature of land where cotton crop was also being grown, was acquired under the very same notification and in the MJC No.31 of 2001, the learned Court directed to give compensation,fixing the value of land at Rs.64,000/- per acre. However, having come to the conclusion that the annual income of the respondents out of their acquired land was about Rs.5000/- per acre, it assessed the value at Rs.80,000/- per acre by apply¬ing 16 years multiplier. 6. There is no dispute that the land in question was un-irrigated agriculture land. In this context, the principle laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh and another etc. AIR 1996 Supreme Court, 106 rules the field. In that case, after indicating the mode of determination of compensation for agricultural land and for land having fruit bearing trees on the basis of yield thereof, the Apex Court observed as follows: “...... Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier as it is settled law of this Court in catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultur¬al land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier.” The aforesaid ratio laid down in Gurcharan Singh case (supra) was also approved by a larger Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Airports Authority of India v. Satya Gopal Roy and others : AIR 2002 SC 1423 wherein it was observed as follows : “Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra) and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years’ multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compen¬sation adopting the multiplier of 18.” The ratio laid down in Gurcharan Singh’s case and in the Airports Authority of India’s case (supra) has also been followed by this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Giridhari Nayak 2006(II) OLR 329 wherein for acquisition of Agricultural land, this Court adopted 12 multiplier instead of 16 for the assessment of compensation. 7. In the light of the principles decided in the aforesaid case, the amount of compensation in the instant case should be assessed by applying the 12 multiplier which would come to Rs.5000/- X 12 = Rs.60,000/-. However, having regard to the fact that for acquisition of similar nature of land having similar advantage under the very same notification the assessment of compensation at the rate of Rs.64,000/- per acre has already been accepted by the State Government and payment has already been made to the claimants, I am of the view that the compensation in the present case should also be fixed at Rs.64,000/- per acre. 8. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.80,000/- per acre as has been awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to Rs.64,000/- per acre. The appeal is thus, allowed in part, but in the circum¬stances of the case without order for costs. Appeal allowed in part.