Somnath Iyer, J.
(1) By a preliminary notification made on September 10, 1961, there was an acquisition of 10 acres 39 guntas of wet lands, 23 guntas of dry land and 5 guntas of garden land. These properties, belonged to the claimant, situate in the village of Mathikoppa in the District of Shimoga. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the wet lands at the rate of Rs. 800 an acre and for the garden land at the rate of Rs. 10,000 an acre. We are not concerned with the compensation awarded for the dry land in this appeal, since the matter is not before us.
(2) But, in the enhancement proceedings, the District Judge enhanced the compensation for the wet land to a sum calculated at Rs. 2,000 an acre and for the garden land to a sum calculated at Rs. 21,000 an acre. The Land Acquisition Officer complains that the enhancement made by the District Judge is excessive.
(3) Mr. Ramadas, the learned Government Pleader submitted to us that the District Judge made a mistake in thinking that he could adopt the capitalisation method for the estimate of the market value of the lands on the basis of the income from the properties forgetting that the lands were in occupation of tenants, who were paying only the agreed rent.
(4) The District Judge came to the conclusion that the net yield from each acre of wet land was Rs. 113, which he capitalised by the application of the rule of 20 Years' purchase. But, Mr. Ramadas, has pointed out to us that it was admitted by the claimant that the wet lands were in the occupation of tenants who were delivering only 2 pallas and 10 seers of paddy per acre. The argument maintained before us was that the District Judge should have made the capitalisation on this basis and not upon the yield which the claimant would have got, had he personally cultivated the land.
(5) We think that Mr. Ramadas is right in making this submission. If the land is in the occupation of the tenants, the rent which the tenant delivers to the landlord is the income which he derives and that income forms the basis for capitalisation. But, at the same time, it should be remembered that under Section 12 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1953, a landlord could make an application for the determination of reasonable rent and that in determination of reasonable rent the provisions of section 6 of that Act are attracted. Section 6 provides that the rent payable in respect of any period by a tenant for the lease of any land shall not exceed one-fourth of the crop or crops raised on such land or its value as determined in the-prescribed manner.
(6) Mr. Ramachandra is right in contending that since the claimant could have sought enhancement of the rent under section 12, and it was possible for him to ask for a direction that the tenant should pay a rent which might be as high as one-fourth of the value of the crop raised on each acre of wet land, the rent which was fixed quite a long time ago before the acquisition proceedings commenced, cannot form the basis of capitalization and that the enhanced rent which the landlord might seek under section 12 should form the basis.
(7) We should, therefore, proceed to ascertain what was the probable maximum rent which the claimant would have derived on a determination under section 12 of the Tenancy Act.
(8) P. W. 1 gave evidence that in the village of Mathikoppa, the yield from each acre of wet land varied between 20 and 25 bags, each bag measuring 65 seers of paddy. According to P. W. 2 it varied between 25 and 30 bags, according to P. W. 3 between 15 and 20 pallas; according to P. W. 4 between 18 to 20 pallas; and according to P. W. 5 between 15 and 20 pallas.
(9) It is seen from the award that in the mahazer, which the Land Acquisition Officer got prepared, there is a recital that 12 pallas of paddy was the yield from each acre of wet land. The District Judge thought that the mahazer correctly stated the yield, and we think that he was right in coming to that conclusion. That finding recorded by the District Judge receives support from the evidence of P. W. 1 according to whom, the maximum yield was 20 bags which will be equivalent to 1300 seers. Although P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 gave evidence that the income was much higher, we are disposed to take the view that 12 pallas of paddy was the probable yield from each acre of the wet land which was acquired.
(10) The Land Acquisition Officer gave evidence that the price of paddy at the relevant point of time was Rs. 24 a palla and the witnesses examined for the claimant stated that it varied between Rs. 27 and Rs. 30. It seems to us that we can take it that the rate was Rs. 27 a palla on the date of the preliminary notification.
(11) If 12 Pallas of paddy was the yield from each acre of wet land, the maximum rent which could have been claimed under the provisions of the Tenancy Act was 3 pallas of paddy for each acre and their value would be Rs. 81. If this income is capitalised by the rule of 20 years purchase, the market value of each acre of wet land would be Rs. 1,620/- But, having regard to the uncertainties and the like and also remembering that 3 pallas would be the maximum rent which could be claimed under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, we consider it fair to say that each acre of wet land when the land acquisition proceedings commenced was worth Rs. 1,500/-.
(12) We therefore, modify the decree of the District Judge by substituting for the compensation for the wet land at Rs. 2,000/- an acre, compensation calculated at Rs. 1,500/- an acre. To this sum of money will be added the usual statutory allowance of 15 p.c. and interest will be paid on that amount from the date on which possession was delivered till the date of payment.
(13) In regard to the garden land measuring 5 guntas, the District Judge was of the view that the gross income was Rs. 2000/-. He was right in coming to that conclusion since the Land Acquisition Officer gave evidence that the yield from each acre was 40 maunds and that the price of each maund was Rs. 50/-. From this sum of Rs. 2000/- he deducted a sum of Rs. 1000/- being the cost of cultivation and here again the District Judge depended upon the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer himself. Therefore, the net income was Rs. 1,000/- an acre and capitalisation of this income by the application of the rule of 20 years' purchase yielded the result that the market value of each acre was Rupees 20,000/-.
(14) But, Mr. Ramadas complains that the District Judge awarded compensation at Rs. 21,000/- without there being any basis for the award of this higher compensation. His complaint is that the District Judge struck an average between the market value deduced by him and the compensation claimed by the claimant, and arrived at the figure of Rupees 21,000/- an acre. It is obvious that the District Judge could not have struck on average in that way. Once he reached the conclusion that Rs. 20,000/- was the market value, which he deduced by the capitalisation method, it was not possible for him to add anything to that market value. So we reduce the compensation awarded by the District Judge to a sum calculated at Rs. 20,000/- an acre. To this sum of money will be added the usual statutory allowance, and, on the aggregate, the claimant will be entitled to interest from the date on which possession was taken till the date of payment.
(15) The District Judge awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum on the aggregate compensation payable to the claimant. Mr. Ramadas contended that Land Acquisition Officer made his award, and, since under the amended section, interest is claimable only the 5 per cent, the District Judge could not have directed the payment of interest at 6 per cent per annum. To this submission, we cannot accede On the date when the land acquisition proceedings commenced, section 34 had not been amended and under the provisions of that section as it stood at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, the claimant was entitled to interest at 6 per cent. That right was a vested right, which was saved by section 6 of the General Clauses Act. That being so, the District Judge, in our opinion was right in directing interest at the rate provided by section 34 as it stood when the acquisition proceedings commenced. So the claimant will be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation due to him at 6 per cent per annum from the date on which possession was taken till the date of payment.
(16) The decree of the District Judge will stand modified in accordance with the directions contained in this judgment.
(17) In regard to costs, since none of the parties has completely succeeded in this appeal there will be no direction in regard to costs.
(18) Order accordingly.