The Court's earlier judgment in A.S. 333/1973 bound the Trial Court in adopting the multiplier as 16 times. The Court also considered the impact of inflation and nominalism on the market value of the property.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

1. The Judgment of the court was delivered by Varghese Kalliath, J.- This is an appeal by the State. A piece of land measuring 1.620 Hectares in Sy. No. 1/30 of Kandalad Village was acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award fixing the compensation. The claimant (respondent in this appeal) was not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He caused a reference under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Badagara.

2. The respondent in this appeal raised before the Trial Court several grounds for enhancement of compensation. The Trial Court passed a decree on 6th March 1973 granting substantial enhancement of compensation. The State filed an appeal as A. S. 333/1973 before this court against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, dated 6th March 1973. This court decided A. S. 333/1973 by a common judgment, dated 10th March 1975. On many matters of controversy the findings of the Trial Court were upheld by this court. This court found that the valuation in regard to certain items was not satisfactory and the decree of the Trial Court was set aside in regard to these specific items and directed a fresh disposal of the case on these points in the light of the observations in the judgment. On 3 items this court directed fresh valuation.

3. In regard to fixing the value of the rubber trees, this court directed the Trial Court to adopt 3 kgms. of rubber as the yield per tree. In regard to fixing the price of rubber the direction in the judgment in A. S. 333/73 was that it should be consistent with Ext. A-2 notification. The Trial Court was asked to fix afresh the compensation for arecanut trees yielding and non yielding.

4. The Trial Court considered the points directed to be decided by the Trial Court and passed a decree fixing an enhanced compensation of Rs. 74,952.80. The State is not satisfied with the decree. The State challenges the decfce in this appeal.

5. The learned Advocate General who argued the case formulated three points. He contended that the respondent is not entitled to a separate land value when the valuation of the property is based on capitalisation of the income of the property. The second point raised is that the multiplier applied namely 16 for capitalisation is unsustainable in law in view of the recent decision reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadrappa etc. (1984) 1 SCWR 3. The third point argued by the learned Advocate General is in respect of the quantum of income from the rubber trees. He contended that the income determined by the lower court from the rubber trees is excessive and against the specific direction of this court in the judgment in A.S. 333/1973.

6. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded an amount of Rs. 5523 as land value. A reading of the operative portion of the judgment under appeal would show that the learned Judge has not granted land value separately. The learned Judge held that the total compensation the respondent is entitled to is only Rs. 1,53,394-69 and the solatium thereon. The total compensation referred to above takes in only compensation for improvements without the land value. The learned Judge directed deduction of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from the amount fixed by the court and a decree for the balance amount alone has been granted. So, it is clear that no separate compensation for land has been given by the Trial Court. We are passing a fresh decree in this case and we are not granting separate compensation for the land apart from the compensation fixed on the basis of income from the property.

7. The court below has taken the multiplier for capitalisation as 16. The learned Advocate General submitted that the multiplier 16 is unsustainable. He submitted that the multiple that can be adopted is only 10 times. He submitted that the rule as to number of years purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule b