( 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