JUDGMENT S.N. Katju, J. - This is a claimant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Mathura in a reference made to hint under Sec. 18 read with Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The aforesaid reference had been made on the application of the respondent Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj. The land in dispute which had been acquired is situated in Brindaban in the district of Mathura and measures 2.91 acres (14084 sq. yards). The Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated the 16th February 1948 assessed the amount of compensation at Rs. 14,613. Out of this amount of Rs. 14,613/- the appellant Sri Thakur Govind Deoji Maharaj was awarded Rs. 10,429/- while the respondent Sri Thakut. Rangji Maharaj and others were given Rs. 4,184/-. The market value of the land was calculated at /14/- per sq. yard, and apportioned between the parties in the ratio of 6:10 which was held to be the usual proportion in which compensation is apportioned between a landlord and his tenant in the case of occupancy agricultural tenancies. 2. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer was not accepted by the respondent Sri Thakur Rangji Maharaj who got a reference made to the District Judge of Agra. He contended that the market value of the land was much more and that the entire compensation should have been paid to the permanent lessee, viz. the respondent, and nothing should be paid to the appellant proprietor. The respondent claimed rupees one lac as the amount of compensation to which he was entitled. 3. The learned District Judge determined the total amount of compensation payable for the acquired land at Rs. 1/8 per sq. yard to be Rs. 21,645/-. He was of the opinion that the appellant was entitled to 40 year's capitalized value of the rent payable for the land, i.e. Rs. 8/8/- per year and on that basis he awarded Rs. 340/- to the appellant landlord. He also held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 130/- as compensation for five neem trees. Thus the total compensation to which the appellant was held to be entitled came to Rs. 470/- To that amount 15 per cent. for compulsory acquisition was added, bringing the figure to Rs. 540/8/-. Deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 540/8/-, the balance out of the total amount of Rs. 21,645/- was awarded to the respondent. Thus the total compensation to which the appellant was held to be entitled came to Rs. 470/- To that amount 15 per cent. for compulsory acquisition was added, bringing the figure to Rs. 540/8/-. Deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 540/8/-, the balance out of the total amount of Rs. 21,645/- was awarded to the respondent. Assuming that the appellant must have realised Rs. 10,429/- in accordance with the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer, he (the appellant) was directed to return the balance to the respondent after retaining the amount of Rs. 540/8/-. 4. The appellant landlord has come up in appeal against the decision. He no longer questions the correctness of the total amount which has been determined as the compensation payable in respect of the land. His grievance relates only to the manner in which the compensation has been apportioned between the parties. It is contended in support of the appeal that the learned District Judge was not justified in giving to the appellant only the 40 year's capitalized value of the proportionate rent of the land. ** ** ** * 9. Dr. Asthana for the respondent tried to urge before us that the land was really sold to the respondent in the garb of a lease. We are, however, not prepared to accept the contention. In the first place it does not appear to have been raised at any earlier stage and cannot be allowed to be put forward for the first time in appeal. Then there is no evidence or material on the basis of which it can be held that the land was really sold and not only let out permanently. 10. Sri Ghatak has contended on behalf of the appellant that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant is inadequate. He contends that he should have been awarded much more than the amount of the annual rental capitalized 40 times. He has argued that as the owner of the land he has got .the right to get back the property even though the chances for that contingency may be remote. He has cited certain authorities in support of his contention that he should have been awarded an amount in excess of what has been given to him. They are Hirdey Narain v. Mrs. M.I. Powell, I.L.R. XXXV Alld. He has cited certain authorities in support of his contention that he should have been awarded an amount in excess of what has been given to him. They are Hirdey Narain v. Mrs. M.I. Powell, I.L.R. XXXV Alld. 9 = 10 A.L.J.R. 403, Natesa Aiyar v. Kaja Maruf Sahib, AIR 1927 Madras 489, Hakim Singh v. Collector Gurdaspur, AIR 1932 Lahore 123, Collector of Dacca v. Gholam Kuddus Choudhury, AIR 1936 Calcutta 688 and Santosh Kumar v. Nanda Kishore, AIR 1958 Calcutta 56. The first mentioned case of Hirday Narain v. Mrs. M.J. Powell, I.L.R. XXXV Alld. 9 = 10 A.L.J.R. 403 is mainly an authority for the proposition that if more than one person is interested in the land acquired the compensation must be apportioned in accordance with the value of the interest of each claimant. This is not disputed on behalf of the respondent. What is contended on its behalf is that according to the terms of the lease in the present case almost all the rights in the land vest in the respondent. The appellant has only a right to take the annual rent. The District Judge was, therefore, justified in awarding to it a capitalized value of the rent. He was generous in calculating the capitalized value at 40 times instead of the usual 20 times. This case as well as the case in Natesa Aiyar v. Kaja Maruf Sahib, AIR 1927 Madras 489, Collector of Dacca v. Gholam Kuddus Choudhury, AIR 1936 Calcutta 688 and Santosh Kumar v. Nanda Kishore, AIR 1958 Calcutta 56 are cases in which the tertian had only occupancy rights in the land. They were not cases of permanent lease. It cannot be disputed that the value of the tenant's interest in a land of which he holds a permanent lease is much greater than the value of his interest in law in which he has only occupancy rights. The chances of his losing possession of the land in the latter case are much greater than in the former. The right of ultimate reversion to the landlord is there in both the cases but on account of the remoteness of the chance of the materialisation of that right the value of that right in the latter case is much lower than in the former. The right of ultimate reversion to the landlord is there in both the cases but on account of the remoteness of the chance of the materialisation of that right the value of that right in the latter case is much lower than in the former. Cases of occupancy tenancy cannot, therefore, afford a true guide for the proper apportionment of the compensation between a landlord and his permanent tenant. 11. The leading case in which the question of apportionment of compensation between the landlord and a permanent tenant was directly considered is Dinendra Narain Roy v. Titaram Mukerjee, I.L.R. XXX Cal. 801. In that case after referring to the earlier case of that Court on the point Maclean, C.J. quoted with approval the following observation made in Shoma Prosunne Bose Mazumdar v. Brakoda Sundari Dasi, I.L.R. 28 Cal. 146 :- "The principle upon which the compensation money in cases of this class ought to be apportioned as bet-ween the landlord and tenant is as follows :- First, the Court must ascertain the amount of rent payable to the landlord and capitalize that rent at so many year's purchase, the number of year's purchase depending upon the particular circumstances of each particular case. The landlord is at the outset entitled to that capitalized value, but I think he is entitled to something more. There is, or in many cases may be, the chance of an enhancement of the then existing rent; he is entitled in my opinion to have the value of this chance of enhancement assessed, and to have a money-value put upon it and to take that money-value out of the compensation awarded. It may in some, perhaps in many, cases be somewhat difficult to arrive at the true capitalized value to the landlord of this chance of enhancement, but it will be for the landlord who sets up such a claim to make it out, and show what the true value is. It may in some, perhaps in many, cases be somewhat difficult to arrive at the true capitalized value to the landlord of this chance of enhancement, but it will be for the landlord who sets up such a claim to make it out, and show what the true value is. I do not think the landlord can be entitled to anything more, nor have I heard it suggested that he can be." Hakim Singh v. Collector Gurdaspur, AIR 1932 Lahore 123 is another case in which the land that had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act had been leased in perpetuity on a fixed rent and the question was as to the proportion in which the compensation had to be divided between the lessor and the lessee. It was held that the Court should proceed on the principle of ascertaining what is the value of the interest of the zamindar on the one hand with which he had parted and that of the tenant on the other and apportion the compensation money between them in accordance with those values. The amount of compensation was Rs. 1,115/- and under the circumstances the lessor was awarded the capitalized value of the rent i.e. Rs. 278/12/- while the lessee was given Rs. 836/4/- on the basis of their respective interests in the land that had been acquired. 12. The established rule applicable to cases where apportionment has to be made between a landlord and a permanent tenant, therefore, appears to be that the landlord should get the capitalized value of the rent plus something more on account of the right of reversion that vests in him. The balance must go to the permanent tenant in whom the rest of the right in the land vests. In the present case the learned District Judge fixed the amount payable to the appellant on the basis of the capitalized value of the proportionate amount of rent which he was entitled to get. We agree that so far as the basis of capitalizing the amount of the annual rental is concerned it is a fair assessment of the amount of compensation. The reversionary interest of the lessor in the land has, however, still to be valued. We agree that so far as the basis of capitalizing the amount of the annual rental is concerned it is a fair assessment of the amount of compensation. The reversionary interest of the lessor in the land has, however, still to be valued. While calculating this interest we have to bear in mind that as the provisions of the lease indicate the lease was in favour of Swami Rangachari and his heirs and representatives. Swami Rangachari transferred the land under the lease in favour of the appellants. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to how the land was transferred. The respondent is a deity. There is nothing on the record to indicate the nature of the temple, how it is run and how it is managed and what amount or what proportion of the income from the land acquired, if any, is used for purposes of the expenses of the temple. All that we have been informed is that the respondent is a public temple. It is true that a public temple in normal circumstances may survive for long. In such cases it may be that the right of the lessor to get the leased property in case the deity or the heirs of the lessor are no more in existence would be a remote possibility. Nonetheless the possibility is there and has to be taken into account. 13. There is no fixed basis on which the right of a possible reversion can be valued in terms of money. We, however, think that in the circumstances of the present case it will be fair if it is valued at Rs. 1,500/-. Thus the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant would be increased by Rs. 1,500/- plus the usual amount of 15 percent for compulsory acquisition on that amount. 14. We, therefore, allow the appeal in part and modify the decree of the Court below to the extent that we direct that the share of the compensation to be given to the appellant be increased by a sum of Rs. 1,500/- together with 15 percent on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,500/-. The balance of the amount of compensation money will go to the respondent. The rest of the appeal is dismissed. We direct that the parties should get and pay costs in both the Courts in proportion to their success and failure. 15. 1,500/- together with 15 percent on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,500/-. The balance of the amount of compensation money will go to the respondent. The rest of the appeal is dismissed. We direct that the parties should get and pay costs in both the Courts in proportion to their success and failure. 15. If the respondent has taken more than his share of the amount of compensation awarded to him that amount would be refunded to the appellant together with interest thereon at 4 percent per annum.