GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer, Tumkur, under s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the award and decree made in lac. 178/1968 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Tumkur. Three acres and 5 guntas of dry land and 3 acres of garden land containing 86 cocoanut trees comprised in S. No. 30 of Madake Kannasandra village, Kunigal Taluk were acquired for a public purpose pursuant to the notification made under S. 4 of the Act and published in the Gazette on 5-3-1968. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000 an acre in respect of dry land; Rs. 6,000 an acre in respect of garden land and in addition, Rs. 250 per tree for cocoanut trees standing on the land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded rs. 800 an acre for the dry land; Rs. 1,500 an acre for the garden land and at Rs. 130 per cocoanut tree. On a reference made to the Civil Court under s. 18 of the Act, the learned Civil Judge fixed the market value of the dry land at Rs. 1,500 per acre. That part of the award has not been challenged before us as the amount of compensation fixed is just and reasonable. ( 2 ) IN regard to the garden land, the Court below awarded a sum of rs. 2,500 an acre besides awarding Rs. 250 per cocoanut tree. That part of the award has been challenged in this appeal. ( 3 ) THE Court below has relied on the report of the Mahajardars (Ext. Rl) for valuing the garden land at Rs. 2,500 per acre. That there were 86 cocoanut trees at the time of acquisition is not in dispute. The complaint of the learned High Court Govt. Advocate Sri Venkatachala was that if the land is valued as garden land, then, a separate compensation cannot be awarded for the fruit growing trees standing on the said land for the reason that the land becomes a garden land on account of the existence of the fruit growing trees on it. If the cocoanut trees did not exist, the land would not be classed as garden land at all was the submission made. This argument of the learned Government Advocate, in our opinion is well founded. If the cocoanut trees did not exist, the land would not be classed as garden land at all was the submission made. This argument of the learned Government Advocate, in our opinion is well founded. When a cocoanut garden areca garden or a mango garden is acquried, the proper method of valuation is not to value the land separately and trees separately, but to consider the market value of the cocoanut garden or the areca garden and the like. In that view, the award made by the Court below in so far as the garden land with the cocoanut trees standing on it, cannot be supported. ( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer himself has awarded compensation for the garden land at Rs. 1,500 an acre besides Rs. 130 per cocoanut tree. Since the Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed the error of valuing the land and the cocoanut trees standing on it separately, the proper course for us to adopt would be to affirm the award made by the land Acquisition Officer. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY we allow this appeal in part. The compensation awarded by the Court below in respect of dry land will stand undisturbed. But the award made by it in respect of the garden land and the cocoanut trees standing on it is modified and in respect of that the award given by the land Acquisition Officer is affirmed. ( 6 ) PARTIES will pay and receive costs in proportion to their success in this appeal. --- *** ---