JUDGMENT : The appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2004 is preferred against the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1996. The appeal has been filed by the Government. Similarly, the claimant has also filed Cross Objection No.19 of 2006 for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The following facts are not in dispute. An extent of 0.06.5 hectares in Survey No.658/2A and an extent of 0.07.0 hectares in Survey No.658/9A in A.Vellode Village, Dindigul Taluk, were acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming Railway Track. The notification issued under Section 4(1) is dated 09.01.1991. Though the land is classified as a punja land as per the revenue records, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation by adopting capitalization method in respect of the claimant's land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.29,640/- per hectare. After determining the land cost, the Land Acquisition Officer also awarded compensation for the lands by adopting capitalization method. After taking into account the income for ten years for the land in Survey No.658/2A at Rs.17,290/- and for the land in Survey No.658/9A at Rs.57,750/-, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. From the award, it can be seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has also added the land costs apart from determining the compensation by adopting capitalization method. However, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Dindigul in L.A.O.P.No.20 of 1996 fixed the compensation by capitalization method. After taking into account the gross income for both lands in Survey No.658/2A and 658/9A at Rs.50,000/- per annum, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the Income towards expenses and determined the net income at Rs.25,000/- per annum for the land belonging to the respondent / claimant. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Rama Rana and others reported in (1997) 2 SCC 693 , the Tribunal adopted 10 multiplier and fixed the compensation for the claimant's land at Rs.2,50,000/-. It is against the said award, the Government has preferred the First Appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2004 and the claimant has preferred the Cross Objection (MD) No.19 of 2006 in A.S.No.145 of 2004. 3. It is against the said award, the Government has preferred the First Appeal in A.S.No.145 of 2004 and the claimant has preferred the Cross Objection (MD) No.19 of 2006 in A.S.No.145 of 2004. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the trial Court has determined the income from the properties acquired by taking into account some of the documents which are not proved by proper evidence. The Tribunal has relied upon Exs.A1 to A6 which are small pocket note books indicating the quantity and price of the two types of flowers namely Sampanki and Jasmine grown by the claimant in the acquired land were sold to a flower merchant for a period of about two years. The claimant also has examined himself as a witness apart from examining the flower merchant to prove his case. It is not in dispute that the claimant has planted Sampanki and Jasmine in the lands acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer himself has admitted this fact and held that the income from the property namely Sampanki was Rs.17,290/- and income from Jasmine was Rs.57,750/-. Peculiarly, R.W.1 in his evidence before the Tribunal during examination has admitted that the income as referred to in the award was the annual income. However, the witness spoke differently during further examination. The Tribunal considering the nature of agricultural operation and the other circumstances, fixed the income from the lands at Rs.50,000/- per annum. From the documents filed by the claimants, though these documents cannot be relied upon without corroboration they cannot be ignored totally in the absence of proper and valid suggestions doubting the veracity of the documents or to reject the documents totally. After considering the oral evidence, the Tribunal has arrived at the gross income. The Tribunal has also deducted 50% towards expenses. The multiplier allowed by Tribunal was also on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This acquisition was initiated in the year 1991 and the award thus was passed in the year 1994. The claimant is in the litigation battle for more than 26 years and the award of the Tribunal fixing the compensation by adopting capitalization method is reasonable. Having regard to the evidence both oral and document, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal either on the amount of income or on the method adopted. Hence, this appeal deserves dismissal. 4. Having regard to the evidence both oral and document, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal either on the amount of income or on the method adopted. Hence, this appeal deserves dismissal. 4. In the cross objection, the claimant sought for enhancement mainly on the ground that the income from the horticulture operation will be more and that the multiplier should be 20 instead of 10. Absolutely, there is no merit in the contention of the claimant / cross objector on the income. It is to be noted that only a small extent of 32 cents has been acquired from the claimant. It was only based on the findings in the award, it was taken that the entire extent belonged to the claimant was under cultivation and that the claimant had Sampanki and Jasmine flowers grown in his property at the time of acquisition. The claimant has not examined any expert to arrive at the annual yield and annual income by selling the flowers that can be grown in the small extent of land. The net annual income as determined by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- itself is on the higher side and there is no scope for any further enhancement. Sampanki and Jasmine are not permanent crops and the average life expectancy of the plants cannot be more than 10 years. Hence, there is no scope for adopting the multiplier above 10. Even in respect of the coconut thope or mango grove, the multiplier cannot exceed 12. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent / Cross Objector. Hence, I do not find any merit in the Cross Objection also. Thus, both the First Appeal as well as the Cross Objection are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.