VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeals are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Port manglore, and are directed against a common award made by the learned second Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, South Kanara, in OP. No. 806/67, LAC. Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 1967. Since the claimant is common in all these cases, these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. The lands comprised in these cases are dry, garden, wet II and wet III lands. In regard to the said lands the Land Acquisicion Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000, 3,000, 2,400 to 4,000 and Rs. 2,400 per acre respectively. On a reference to the Court at the instance of the Claimant, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,000, 13,200, 8,800 to 13,300 and Rs. 6,600 per acre respectively, in regard to the abovesaid lands. Aggrieved by this award, the land Acquisition Officer, has approached this court in the present appeals. MFA. No. 340/69 arises out of OP. No. 806/67. MFA. No. 341/69 arises out of LAC. No. 27/67; MFA. No. 342/69 arises out of LAC. No. 28 67; MFA. No. 343/69 arises out of LAC. No. 29/67 and MFA. No. 344/69 arises out of lac. No. 30/67. The Original Petition and the Land Acquisition Cases were all cases on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Mangalore. It is relevant to specifically refer to a few particulars regarding some of the lands, in the context of the arguments addressed before us. S. No. 26/23 concerned in MFA. No. 340/69 is a garden land, measuring 9 cents. The Claimant had claimed initially compensation at the rate of rs. 25,000 per acre. Later, when she asked for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquistion Act, hereinafter called the Act, confined the claim to Rs. 8,000 per acre. The Court treating the garden land as Wet II, for the reason that it was entirely surrounded by wet II lands, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,200 per acre. In the same appeal, S. No. 26/28, measuring 43 cents, is a wet II land, in regard to which, the Claimant had claimed Rs. 25,000 per acre, in response to the notice issued under S. 9 of the Act. Later, while asking for a reference under S. 18 of the Act, she confined her claim to Rs. 13,200 per acre. In the same appeal, S. No. 26/28, measuring 43 cents, is a wet II land, in regard to which, the Claimant had claimed Rs. 25,000 per acre, in response to the notice issued under S. 9 of the Act. Later, while asking for a reference under S. 18 of the Act, she confined her claim to Rs. 10,000 per acre. The Court, however , awarded rs. 13,200 per acre. ( 2 ) IMILARLY in MFA. No. 341/69, one of the lands concerned is S. No. 26/16, measuring 27 cents, classified as wet II. The Claimant before the LAC. had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per acre. Later, while asking for a reference to the Civil Court, she confined her claim to a rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre. The Court, however, awarded Rs. 13,200 per acre. In MFANo. 342/69, one of the lands conerned is S. No. 215/2, measuring 22 cents, classified as wet III (One crop land ). The claimant had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer, compensation at the rate of rs. 20,000 per acre. Later, while asking for a reference under S. 18 of the act, she confined her claim to a rate of Rs. 5,000 per acre. The Court, however, awarded Rs. 6,600 per acre. In MFA. No. 343/69, the land concerned is S. No. 173, classified as wet III. Here again, the Claimant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre and subsequently confined her claim to a rate of Rs. 5,000 per acre in her application under S. 18 of the Act. The Court, however, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,600 per acre. It is unnecessary to refer to the other lands and the compensation claimed therein, as the main argument addressed on behalf of the appellant in all these appeals centred round the above referred lands. The lower Court computed the compensation payable by adopting the capitalisation method. To that end it acted upon the 'geni' payable in regard to the wet II and wet III lands. The ruling price of rice on the relevant date has been taken as Rs. 55 per mura. On behalf of the appellant, 'geni' or the rent recoverable from the lands and the ruling price of rice per mura was not seriously disputed. The ruling price of rice on the relevant date has been taken as Rs. 55 per mura. On behalf of the appellant, 'geni' or the rent recoverable from the lands and the ruling price of rice per mura was not seriously disputed. But, the following contentions were pressed for consideration by Sri N. S. Chandrasekhar, the learned High Court Government Pleader: (1) that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the application of the capitalisation method was not warranted by the evidence on record; (2) that the garden land concerned in S. No. 26/23, which is the subject matter in MFA nt. 340/69, should not have been treated as a Wet II land and compensation awarded accordingly; and (3) that the determination of the compensation in regard to the lands enumerated above, far exceeded the claim made by the respondent in her application under S. 18 of the Act; thus, the award is contrary to the provisions of S. 25 (1) of the Act. The first contention relates to the quantum of compensation. We have been taken through the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. It is clear that the learned Civil Judge has taken 12 muras of geni in regard to wet II land (capable of growing two crops), 8 muras of geni in regard to wet II patla lands, yielding a single crop and 6 muras of geni per acre in regad to wet III land capable of yielding a single crop. He has also taken into account' the prevailing rate of rice in the year 1966 as Rs. 55 per mura. That the rice was being sold at Rs. 55 per mura is clear from the Gazette Notification issued by the relevant authority for that year. Having regard to the fact that these are wet lands, it cannot be said that the computation of the market value of the land by the learned Civil Judge is excessive. We, therefore, reject the contention in this regard, urged on behalf of the appellant. ( 3 ) AS regards treating S. No. 26 23 as a wet-land, although it is classified as a garden, the contention is that the lower Court was not justified in assuming that it was capable of being converted into a wet II land merely on the basis that it is surrounded on all sides with wet II lands. ( 3 ) AS regards treating S. No. 26 23 as a wet-land, although it is classified as a garden, the contention is that the lower Court was not justified in assuming that it was capable of being converted into a wet II land merely on the basis that it is surrounded on all sides with wet II lands. The fact that S. No. 26/23 is classified as a garden land with buildings standing thereon, would not detract from its potentialities for conversion into a wet ii land. It is well settled law, in matters relating to land acquisitions, that compensation must be awarded taking into consideration the value of the land with all its potentialities. In the instant case, it appears to us that the claimant has merely left it fallow in order to use it for the purpose of a farm tenant for her residence. We are , therefore, clearly of opinion that the learned Civil Judge has not erred in any manner in treating it as wet II land, on a par with the surrounding lands, for the purpose of determining the market value. Hence, this contention also fails. ( 4 ) THE third contention relates to the jurisdiction of the learned Civil judge to award compensation in excess of what was claimed by the claimant herself. On this aspect our attention was invited to the various applications filed by the Claimant under Sec. 18 of the Act, while asking for references to the Civil Court for purposes of determination of just and proper compensation payable for the lands under acquisition. It is relevant to mention that the question appertains only to the lands detailed earlier. While asking for a reference, the Claimant has stated as hereunder. It is sufficient to refer to two of such statements, as all others are almost on similar lines. In LAC. No. 28/67, concerned in MFA. No. 342/69, this is what the claimant has stated:"the reasons given by the Land Acquisition Officer to reduce the value of the land are not tenable. The lands in S. No. 215/1 should have been valued at least at Rs. 8,000 per acre and S. No. 216/2 at Rs. 5,000 per acre. " (underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 5 ) IN LAC. No. 27/67, concerned in MFA. The lands in S. No. 215/1 should have been valued at least at Rs. 8,000 per acre and S. No. 216/2 at Rs. 5,000 per acre. " (underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 5 ) IN LAC. No. 27/67, concerned in MFA. No. 341/69, the claim is in respect of S. No. 26/4 and S. No. 26/6, both of which are wet II lands capable of growing two crops. This is what the claimant has stated:"the petitioner submits that the rate at which the value has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the above land is very low in view of the various reasons such as the nafure of the land, their potential value etc. The reasons given by the Land Acquisition officer to reduce the value of the land are not legal and tenable the land should have been valued at least at Rs. 10,000 per acre. " (Underlining (italics) is ours ). ( 6 ) IN view of the above mentioned statements, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the claim should have been limited to such amounts, having regard to the provisions of S. 25 (1) of the Act. It is relevant to remark that the learned Civil Judge has not at all taken into account such statements, made by the Claimant in her applications for reference to the Civil Court under S. 18 of the Act. On behalf of the respondent, sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, the learned Counsel, submitted that the use of the word 'at least' in the said statements would not connote that the Claimant had resiled from the claims made by her before the land Acquisition Officer. His further argument was that if the statements were read as a whole, it would be clear that what the Claimant had specified was the minimum, the implication being that she had not given up her claim to the compensation in excess of the figures so mentioned. We are unable to accede to this argument urged on behalf of the respondent. It is no doubt clear from the provisions of S. 25 (1) of the Act, that a limitation is imposed on a Civil Court as regards the limit of compensation that could be awarded, and that it should in no case exceed the amount claimed by the owner whose lands have been acquired. It is no doubt clear from the provisions of S. 25 (1) of the Act, that a limitation is imposed on a Civil Court as regards the limit of compensation that could be awarded, and that it should in no case exceed the amount claimed by the owner whose lands have been acquired. But, it does not prevent an owner of the lands acquired from reducing and limiting the compensation to a figure lower than the one claimed in the first instance before the Land Acquisition Officer, while the matter is being brought up before the Civil Court. It is also reasonable to suppose that the claimant while reducing the claim, as has been done in the instant cases, would be having in mind the costs that might be awarded by the civil Court on a disallowance of such claim. It may be, as argued on behalf of the respondent that the word 'at least' would signify the minimum compensation payable. It is to be remembered that in matters relating to compensation cases, the governing principle for determination of the market value of the property acquired is the price which a willing buver would pay to a willing seller. When the owner of a land specifies a certain sum as the minimum pavable in respect of the land under acquisition, it s reasonable to infer that the minimum so mentioned represents a fair value for the property so acquired. To put it differently, the owner would be willing to part with the property if the minimum price stated by her is paid. It seems to us that the object underlying the enactment of S. 25 (1) is to hold the Claimant to his or her own bargain in regard to the compensation payable. The matter can also be viewed from another angle. Tt is fairly well settled proposition that an award by a Land Acquisition Officer can be assimilated to an offer of price for the property acquired, made on behalf of the Government. If the owner accepts the award there is an end of the matter. If the offer is not accepted, the owner can ask for reference to Court for a determination of the fair and proper compensation payable. If the owner accepts the award there is an end of the matter. If the offer is not accepted, the owner can ask for reference to Court for a determination of the fair and proper compensation payable. ( 7 ) IN asking for a reference, or even after the matter reaches the Court, the owner could reduce, but not increase, such claim as any such step taken by him will be taken to be a counter-offer bv a party to a barpain as contrasted with the earlier offer made on behalf of the Govt No inhibition against such a reduction of a clam, can be spelt out from the language of s. 25 (1) of the Act. In this view, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant has to be accepted. We shall now proceed to determine the compensation payable on the lands under acquisition, in regard to which the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge has to be modified in the light of the above conclusion of ours. ****** with regard to the claimant's right to statutory allowances and interest in all the appeals which have been partially allowed, it is needless to mention that she would be only entitled to such allowances and interest on thp compensation ultimately determined as due to her. The relevant awards will stand modified accordingly. In the result, Miscellaneous First Appeals Nos. 340 to 343 of 1969 are partially allowed to the extent indicated above. MFA. No. 344 of 1969 is dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances of the cases, the parties will bear their own costs in all these appeals. --- *** --- .