The onus lies on the claimant to justify any higher award of compensation, and the State's figures, if disputed, should be accepted if independent evidence is not forthcoming.

( 1 ) I have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate in this case. To start with, the appellant's learned Advocate has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in Jade Basappa v Assistant Commissioner and Land acquisition Officer, in which this Court had observed as follows:"the approach of the Courts while dealing with the case of an agriculturist, who has harvested his crop, is to average and round off the figure, the acceptance always being on a little higher side rather than on the lower side. The object has not been to end up with the State paying more money, but to take note of the fact that whatever amount that the landowner seeks is a one-time compensation, the computation of which must never be grudgingly done because even a generous compensation is more than offset by the real land value in the hands of the acquirer and that consequently the lands have always a tremendous potential both for actual financial yield and capital appreciation". He submits that progressively, the Courts have been taking the view that in cases of acquisition, antiquated approaches have led to much injustice in so far as where the lands are relatively small and where the capacity of the agriculturist to produce cogent and concrete evidence in the conventional sense is limited, that in the long run the agriculturist ends up with so small an amount that it is hardly investible not can he find the capital or the nucleus for future survival. This is an aspect of the matter undoubtedly which requires serious re-examination and on the basis of which, to my mind, while reviewing orders passed in cases of compensation the superior Courts have to adopt a more realistic approach to the entire case. The appellant's learned Advocate has basically submitted that one safe standard which the Court can adopt is to go by the case put forward by the state representative at the time when the evidence was led. He submits that even if the Court were to discount the claim made by the land owner who may have a tendency to pitch his case higher than necessary, that the Court should never allow the figures to come below what the respondents themselves accept. This is an aspect of the matter which does require serious consideration because I do concede that the appellant's learned advocate is justified when he points out that the State is represented by the learned Government Advocate before the trial Court who in turn has the benefit of obtaining the necessary instructions from the concerned Officers who are aware of the exact potential of the land, who are aware of its situation, who have knowledge of such factors as the real yield and above all, the prevailing prices. It is on the basis of these factors that the learned Government Advocate is in a position to confront the claimant in cross-examination with what in fact are the correct figures. These figures would however reflect what to my mind is the realistic basis on which a Court may proceed even though one must always take into account the fact that the department will undoubtedly try to keep the compensation within the lowest possible limits and therefore, in a given instance if there is better evidence from the other side undoubtedly the Court will discard these figures.

( 2 ) AT this stage, it is necessary for me to record that the appellant who had lost approximately 3. 40 acres of land had claimed that the yield from the land was 7 to 8 quintals per acre in his evidence and in cross-examination, the case put to him was that the yield was only 5 to 6 quintals per acre. Again, certain figures from the A. P. M. C. had been produced. The appellant had contended that the price range was Rs. 300/- to rs. 400/- per quintal whereas the case put to him by the learned government Advocate in cross-examination was that it would work out to Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per quintal. The learned district Judge has taken the lower of the two figures whereas the appel