Summarize the following court judgment. l Appeal No. 1036 of 1976. 551 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.1975 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 764 of 1972. T.T. Kunhikannan for the Appellant. section Padmanabhan and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY	 J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dated June 11	 1975 made in A.S. No. 764 of 1972. The notification under section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act	 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) was published in the Gazette on February 28	 1967 acquiring six acres of land in the city Of Calicut to construct staff quarters of P & T of Govt. of India. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated February 29	 1969 awarded compensation @ Rs.230 per cent and also the value of the trees by capitalisation method in a sum of Rs.2	69	421.55 p. towards the land improvement together with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest. On reference	 the Civil Court enhanced the market value by judgment and award dated February 9	 1972 at Rs.500 per cent i.e.	 in total Rs.3	00	000 towards land value and confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer of 2	69	421.55 p. towards land improvement making in all 5	69	421.55 p. with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per. cent from the date of dispossession. In the appeal by the State against the en hanced compensation	 it was contended that the Civil Court committed grave error in fixing market value separately to the land and the trees on capitalisation basis to make up the compensation. That contention was found favour with the High Court and it set aside the award of the Civil Court of the value of the land of Rs.3	00	000 and confirmed the award of Rs.2	69	421.55. Calling in question the reversing decree of the High Court	 this appeal has been filed. Two contentions have been raised by Shri Padmanabhan	 the learned senior counsel for the appellant. Firstly he argued that there is an intensive cultivation in the ac quired land not only of the fruit bearing trees therein but also using the vacant space for other short term crops to establish which the appellant sought remand to the Civil Court to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 of Rule 27 etc. The High Court had wrongly rejected the request for additional evidence. we find no force in the contention. It was not the case that the appellant was prevented to adduce evidence in this behalf. Remand 552 under order 41 Rule 27	 C.P.C cannot be made to adduce fresh evidence	 when though available but was not adduced. Even otherwise it was further argued that the land and the trees together constitute the value of the acquired lands and so are separately valued which would reflect the true and correct market value. The Civil Court has correctly adopted the method and the High Court is unjustified in interfering with.the award of the Civil Court; It is also further contended that the land possessed of potential value as building sites and	 therefore	 the reliance by the Civil Court on exhibit A. 1 dated February 19	 1964 which worked out at Rs.400 per cent and exhibit A. 2 dated February 17	 1967 under which 14 were purchased worked out at Rs.556 percent and award of market value @ Rs.500 per cent by the Civil Court was not illegal. exhibit B. 1 under which Rs.230 per cent accepted as claimed by the State cannot be relied upon as the document dated June 3	 1966 does not relate to the lands in the neighbourhood. Admittedly they are situated six furlongs away from the limits of Calicut city and one mile from the acquired lands. On the other hand	 the lands under exhibit A. 1 and A. 2 are situated one furlong from the acquired lands. Therefore	 they provide the comparable sales for fixation of market value. The second contention is that the appellant is entitled to 30 per cent solatium under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The learned counsel appearing for the State has resisted the conten tions. He argued that exhibit A. 1 and A. 2 relate to small extent of 5 cents and 14 cents together with the buildings situated therein. Therefore	 when a large extent of six acres was acquired they offer no comparable price. Small plots always fetch higher price and that	 therefore	 they cannot form same basis to fix the market value at Rs.500 per cent. He also further contended that the lands and the trees cannot be valued separately. The court should adopt only either the value of the	 land or income of the trees with suitable multiplier but not both. The High Court is	 there fore	 well justified in rejecting the sale deeds and the total valuation and confirmed the capitalisation method of valuation. He also contended that the Land Acquisition Act	 1894 and 1984 Amendment Act have no application since acqui sition proceedings were admittedly taken under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The crucial question	 therefore	 is what is the proper method of valuation of the land in question. The total extent of the land is six acres consisting of 1130 coconut trees; 65 arecanut trees and 45 pepper wines. The Civil Court fixed the market value of the lands at 553 Rs.3	00	000. Admittedly	 the appellant did not file any cross objections in the High Court seeking any higher com pensation. Accordingly the market value of the lands fixed at Rs.3	00	000 became final. The fixation of the market value on capitalisation method also became final. It is settled law that the methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of the notification are: (i) opinion of experts (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction Of the purchase or sate of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advan tages and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods	 however	 do not preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration. As the object being always to arrive as near as possible in an estimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value	 it may be necessary to take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as tow lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined. In State of Kerala vs P.P. Hassan Koya; 	 the question arose whether the separate valuation of the land and building would be proper method to be adopted to determine the market value of the acquired property. ' This Court held that "the land and the building constitute one unit" and the value of "the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages" and poten tialities. When the property is sold with building it is often difficult to have sale of single land with building approximately in time to the date of the notification. Therefore	 the	 method which is to be adopted in determining the value of the land and building is the method of capital isation of return actually received or which might reasona bly be received from the land or the building separate valuation of the land and building was not approved and the annual rent received with the proper capitalisation was adopted by the courts below was approved by this Court. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v.P. Veerabhadrappa	 etc. ; 	 this court held that the method of valuation by capitalisation should not be resorted to when other methods are available. However	 where definite materi al is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of simi lar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the	 date of notification under section 4(1) or otherwise	. the court has no other alternative but to fall back on the method of valua tion by capitalisation. In valuing land or an interest in land for purposes of land acquisition proceedings	 the rule as to number of years purchase is not a theoretical or legal rule but depends 554 upon economic factors such as the prevailing rate of inter est in money investments. The return which an investor will expect from an investment will depend upon the characteris tic of income as compared to that of idle security. The main features are: (1) security of the income; (2) fluctuation; (3) chances of increase; (4) cost of collection; etc. The traditional view of capitalised value being linked with gilt edged securities	 no longer be. rigorous when invest ment in fixed deposits with nationalised banks	 National Savings Certificates	 Unit ' Trusts and other forms of Govt. securities and even in the share market command a much greater return are available. The capital in agricultural lands normally when the rate of return on investment was 8.25per cent in the years. 1971 72	 the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitialisation would not	 in any event	 exceeding 10 per cent. In that case the State had agreed to apply 12 1/2 per cent capitalised value of the lands	 this court upheld capitalisation of the value of land at 12 1/2 per cent In Admn. General of West Bengal vs Collector	 Varanasi	 ; this ' Court held that usually land and building there9n constitute one unit. Land is one kind of property; land and building ' together constitute an alto gether different kind of property. They must be valued as one unit. But where	 however	 the property comprises exten sive land and the structure standing thereon	 do not show that full utilization of potential of the land realised	 it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the land with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method	 building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depriciation. The rate of depricia tion	 generally	 arrived at by dividing the cost of con struction '(less the salvage valued at the end of the period of utility) by the number of years of utility of the build ing. The factors that prolong the life and the utility of the building	 such as good maintenance	 necessarily influ ence and bring down the rate of depreciation. In that case larger extent of 23.66 acres together with building of 25	000 sq. feets comprises of 35 rooms	halls and other appurtenances	 and 43 1 fruit bearing and 13 timber trees and 12 bamboo clumps situated in the city of Varanasi were acquired. With regard to the value of the trees	 this Court held that where the land is valued with reference to the potentiality for building purposes the trees on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of its horticul tural value or with reference to the value of the yield but this principle does not come in the way of awarding the timber value after deducting costs for cutting and removing them from the lands as salvage value. 555 It is thus settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property	 namely	 land and the build ing or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon	 value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable ' evidence available	 on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timber and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. In this case the award of compensation was based on both the value of the land and trees. Accordingly the determination of the compensation of the land as well as the trees is illegal. The High Court laid the law correctly. It is seen that exhibit B. 1 relied on by the State was rejected by both the courts and	 therefore	 it cannot offer any reasonable basis to fix the market value of the land. It is 'equally seen that exhibit A. 1 and A. 2 relate to small extent of land together with buildings standing thereon. Therefore	 they too do not also form any reasonable basis Or guide to determine market value of large extent of six acres of the acquired land. The High Court rightly did not place reliance therein. But from the evidence it is clear	 as found by the Civil Court	 that the lands possessed of poten tial value as building sites as the lands are situated in the city itself. There was all round development around the lands. The lands are situated half a furlong from the Bom bay Kanyakumari National Highway. It also abutts the road to Naduvattom	 a busy bus route within the Corporation	 Cali cut. It is situated nearby the industrial area. The Western India Steel Mill	 the Premier Steel Mills	 Arts and Science College	 Cinema Theatre	 Police Station and other offices are situated in close proximity to the lands and that	 therefore	 the lands are possessed of potential value but unfortunately the appellant did not place any material of the prevailing prices as house sites. However	 the value of the land as fixed at Rs.3	00	000 became final. The market value of the income from the trees with 15 years multiplier was ' worked out at Rs.2	69	42 1.55 p. by the Civil Court and the High Court accepted to be the correct valuation and it was also not questioned. But it is lesser than the value of the land. Being higher in value the appellant is entitled to the value of the land as determined by the Civil Cout at Rs.3	00	000 (three lakhs) in total. The value of the trees as fire wood shall be determined towards compensation. We have noted the number of coconut trees etc. The learned counsel has left to this Court 556 to fix any reasonable compensation and On the totality of the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that total sum of Rs. 10	000 would be reasonable compensation towards the value of the total trees as fire wood or as for use of other purposes after deducting salvage expenses. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to total cOmpensation of Rs.3	10	000. Admittedly	 the appellant is entitled to solatium at 15 percent and 4 per cent interest under the Kerala Land Acqui sition Act. Section 30 sub section (1) of the Land Acquisi tion Amendment Act 68 of 1984 reads thus: "Transitional Provisions (1) the provisions of sub section (1A) of section 23 of the Principal Act	 as inserted by Clause (a) of section 15 of this Act	 shall apply	 and shall be deemed to have applied	 also to	 and in relation to	 (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April	 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amend ment) Bill	 1982	 in the House of People)	 in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date	 whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the com mencement of this Act". (2) "The provisions of sub section	 (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the principal Act	 as amended by CI. (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this Act respectively	 shall apply	 and shall be deemed to have applied	 also to	 and in relation to	 any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award ' under the provisions of the	 principal Act later the 30th day of April	 1982. (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amend ment) Bill	 1932	 in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act". A reading of the provisions would reveal the legisla tive intendment that the transitional provisions could apply to every proceeding for acquisition of any land under the principal Act	 namely	 Act 1 of 1894 (Central Act)	 pending on the 30th day of April	 1982	 557 namely	 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisi tion (Amendment) Bill	 2982 in the House of the People; in which no award has been made by the Collector before. that date or the award made by the. Civil Court at the date of the Amendment Act	 namely	 September 24	 	1984. Thus it is clear that 'the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 including sub section (2) section 23 per se is inapplicable to the acquisition of the land under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act	 1961. In Kanthitnathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs State. of Kerala & Ors.	 this Court held that	by operation of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 read with Art 254 of the Constitution	 the Kerala Land Acquisition Act	 1961 by necessary implication stood repealed	 in its application to the State of Kerala and that the Land Acqui sition Act 1 of 1984 as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 stands applicable. Therefore	 the proceedings ' under the Kerala Act being pending proceedings would be continued from the stage at which they stood at. Shri Padmanabhan then.contends that the ratio in Union of India & Ors. vs Filip Tiago De Game of Veden Vasco De Gama	 [1990] 1 SCC 277 would attract the facts in this case and the appellant is entitled to 30 per cent solatium under the amended Act. We are afraid we cannot accede to this contention. The admit ted facts in this case are that the award was made by the Collector on February 29	 1969. On reference the Civil Court made the award on February 9	 1972. In Filip Tiago 's case the award was made on March 5	 1969 and the Civil Court on reference under section 18 made its award on May 28	 1985. In the light of those facts	 this Court by processual interpretation of transitional provision of section 30(2) avoided injustice by eschewing literal construction and advanced justice by mending the law. The ratio is clearly distin guishable. In Union of India & Anr. vs Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. ; 	 a Constitution Bench of this Court	 to resolve the conflict of decisions as to the 'applicability of the Amendment Act to pending appeals in the High Court and in this Court	 held authoritatively that the award made by the Collector referred to in section 30(2) is an award made under section 11 of the Parent Act and the award made by the Principal Civil Court of original juris diction under section 23 of the Parent Act	 on reference made to it by the Collector under section 18 of the Parent Act. There can	 therefore	 be no doubt that the benefit of enhanced solatium intended by section 30(2) is in respect of an award made by the Collector between April 30	 1982 and September 24	 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Civil Court between April 30	 1982 and September 24	 1984 even though it be upon reference from the award made before April 30	 1982. Thus it was held that the pend ency of the appeals against the 558 award made preceding the aforestated two dates in the High Court or this Court would not attract the application of section 30(2) and that	 therefore	 enhanced solatium under section 30(2) read with section 23(2) is inapplicable. Thereby	 the appellant is not entitled to enhanced solatium at 30 per cent. As regards interest is concerned it is fairly conceded that the claimant is entitled only to 4 per cent as awarded by the courts below. Accordingly we allow the appeal	 set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the appellant is entitled to Rs.3	10	000 as enhanced compensation with 15 per cent sola tium and interest at 4 per cent on enhanced market value from the date of dispossession. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs of this Court. V.P.R. Appeal al lowed.

The notification under section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act	 1961 (Act 21 of 1962) was published in the Gazette on February 28	 1967 acquiring six acres of land to construct staff quarters of P & T of Govt. of India. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.2.30 per cent and also the value of the trees by capital isation method in a sum of Rs.2	69	421.55 p. towards the land improvement together with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest. On reference	 the Civil Court enhanced the market value at Rs.500 per cent	 i.e.	 in total Rs.3	00	000 towards land value and confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Offi cer of 2	69	421.55 p. towards land improvement. making in all 5	69	421.55 p. with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent from the date of dispossession. The appeal by the State was allowed by the High Court. Calling in question the reversing decree of the High Court	 this appeal has been filed by the claimant contending that there was an intensive cultivation in the acquired land not only of the fruit hearing trees therein but also using the vacant space for other short term crops to establish	 which the appellant sought remand to the Civil Court to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 of Rule 27 etc.	 which request the High Court had wrongly rejected; that the appellant was entitled to 30 per cent solatium under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition as amended under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984; and that the land and the trees together constitute the value of the acquired lands and so were separately valued which would reflect the correct market value	 which method the Civil Court had correctly adopted. The State contended that the lands and. the trees cannot be valued separately; and that the Laud Acquisitiou Act	 1894 and 1984 Amendment Act have no application since acqui sition proceedings were admittedly taken under. the Kerala Land ACquisition Act. On the question	 what is the proper method of valuation of the land	 this Court	 allowing the claimant 's appeal	 HELD.1. The methods of valuation to be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land as on the date of the notification are: (i) opinion of experts	 (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of the purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advan tages	 and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. These methods	 however	 do not 'preclude the court from taking any other special circumstances obtained in an appropriate case into consideration. As the object being always to arrive as near as possible in an estimate of the market value in arriving at a reasonable correct market value	 it may be necessary to take even two or all those matters into account inasmuch as the exact valuation is not always possible as no two lands may be.the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or the potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which that valuation can be accurately determined. [553B D] 2. In evaluating the market value of the acquired property	 namely	 'land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon	 value of both would not constitute one unit; but separate.units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof or where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. [555A C] State of Kerala V.P.P. Hassan Koya; 	 ; Spe cial 550 Land Acquisition Officer vs P. Veerabhadarappa	 etc. ; 	 and Admn. General of West Bengal vs Collec tor	 Varanasi; 	 	 referred to. 3. SectiOn 30 sub section (1) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would reveal the legislative in tendment that the transitional provisions could apply to every proceeding for acquisition of any land under the principal Act	 namely	 'Act 1 of 1894 (Central Act)	 pending on the 30th day of April	 1982	 namely	 the date of intro duction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill	 1982 in the House of the People; in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date or the award made by the Civil Court at the date of the Amendment Act. It is clear that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 including sub section (2) of section 23 per se is inapplicable to the acquisition of the land under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act	 1961. The pendency of the appeals against the award made preceeding the dates in the High Court or this Court would not attract the application of section 30(2) and that	 therefore	 en hanced solatium under section 30(2) read with section 23(2) is inapplicable. [556H 557B	 557H 558B] Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Kerala & Ors. 	 	 referred to. Union of India & Ors. vs Filip Tiago De Gama	 [1990] 1 SCC 277	 distinguished. Union of India & Anr. vs Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs.; 	 	 followed. On the totality of the facts and circumstances	 total sum of Rs. 10	000 would be reasonable compensation towards the value of the total trees as fire wood or as for use of other purposes after deducting salvage expenses. The appel lant iS not entitled to enhanced solatium at 30 percent: but is entitled to Rs.3	10	000 as enhanced compensation with 15per cent solatium and interest at 4 per cent on enhanced market value from the date of dispossession. [556A B	 558B C] 5. Remand under order 41 Rule27	 C.P.C. cannot be made to adduce fresh evidence	 when though available but was not adduced; [551H 552A]