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. 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 Zh