GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal preferred by the claimant is directed against the award and decree dt. 10-2-1971 made by the Civil Judge, Bangalore District in l. A. Misc. 25/68 on his file which was a reference made under S. 18 of the land Acquisition Act. 4 acres; 21 guntas of land, cqmprised in Survey Na. 7/l of Valagerahalli of Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was acquired by the City impuovement Trust Board, Bangalore, under the City of Bangalore Improvement act pursuant to the Notification under S. 18 of the said Act published on 16-7-1964. The land acquired was an orchard. Before the Land acquisition Officer tha claimant laid a claim for compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. ft. fqr the land and Rs. 29,245 towards value of structures. The land Acquisition Officer valuing separately the land, the vines and other fruit growing plants and the structure awarded compensation as follows: (a) Rs. 2,400 an acre for the land; (b) Rs. 26,118 for the vines and fruit bearing plants; and (c) Rs. 10,210 fqr the structures on the land. The Civil Judge while confirming the amounts awarded under Items (b) and (c) above enhanced the compensation in respect of the land to rs. 1-50 per sq. yd. which works out to Rs. 7,260 an acre. Not being satisfied with the enhancement awarded by the Civil Judge the claimant has preferred this appeal in which he has claimed further enhancement by a sum of Rs. 70,100. ( 2 ) THE appellant's learned Counsel Sri V. Krishna Murthy did not contest before us the compensation fixed for the land and the structures thereon. His grievance was that the compensation fixed for the vines and fruit growing plants is inadequate. He submitted that before the Land acquisition Officer had made his award the Viticulturist of the, Horticulture department of the Government of Mysore was asked to value the fruit growing plants and the vines, that thes said Viticulturist in the presence of the Land Acquisition Officer had valued the same at Rs. 1,26,088, but the Land Acquisition Officer ignoring the said report has fixed the value of the fruit growing plants and vines as low as at Rs. 1,26,088, but the Land Acquisition Officer ignoring the said report has fixed the value of the fruit growing plants and vines as low as at Rs. 22,711-50, that before the Court below the Land Acquisition Officer was summoned to produce the original report given by the Viticulturist and the Land acquisition Officer having failed to produce the report an authenticated copy of the repqrt available with the claimant was produced in the Court and was marked without objection as Ext. P6. Therefore he submitted that even without the non-examination of the Viticulturist his valuation should have been accepted by the Civil Judge. ( 3 ) IN Our opinion, the whole basis of valuation except with regard to the structures on the land, made by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as by the Civil Judge being erroneous in law, the award and decree under appeal except with regard to the compensation awarded for the structures cannot be supported and the matter has to be remanded in part to the court below for a fresh adjudication of the market value of the orchard acquired. ( 4 ) IT is seen from Ext. P6 that the land acquired contained 289 Bangalore-Blue vines some aged about 3 years and some aged about 7 years. There were other varieties of fruit bearing plants like Guava Sapota etc. Ext. PG does not show the actual extent of the are a of the land covered by the vines. There is no evidence either as to the extent of the vine yard. Bangalore Blue is chiefly grown in Karnatalka (Mysore) State; but it is an inferior variety of grape. The distance between vines ordinarily depends on the soil, climate, vigour of the variety and methods of pruning, training and cultivation. According to the book, Fruit Culture in India compiled by Dr. Shan Singh and others published by the Indian Cquncil of agricultural Research, New Delhi, in Mysore the Bangalore Purple variety (another name for Bangalqre-Blue) is spaced 5 x 6 metres and on an overhead arbour (vide p. 201 ). The grape vine, if well cared for, is a long-lived plant. It would easily live and bear grapes for a hundred years or more if given good culture and cared for against pests and diseases. The grape vine, if well cared for, is a long-lived plant. It would easily live and bear grapes for a hundred years or more if given good culture and cared for against pests and diseases. The useful life of commercial vine-yards, is, however, not more than 30 years in the West and South India, as they tend to deteriorate and give less fruit due to the climatic conditions and diseases which attack them from time to time Bangalore Purple of Mysore trained on an arbour yields about 5443 Kg. of fruit per hectare. ( 5 ) NO evidence has been adduced as to what is the market-value of an acre of vine-yard planted with Bangalore Blue in the rural district of Bangalore. No evidence has either been adduced affording the basis for valuation according to the capitalisation method. There is also no evidence as to how much it would have cost in the sixties to raise an acre of vine-yard of Bangalorer Blue variety in the rural District of bangalore ). In the absence of any evidence of the above nature it is not possible for this. Court to determine the market value of the orchard acquired. ( 6 ) WHEN an orchard or a plantation is acquired, the land and the plants cannot be separately valued independently of the vahie of the land. The value of all plant growth upon the land acquired must be considered in sq far as the existence of such plants has a bearing upon the enhancement in the market-value of such land. This view of ours finds support from what Nichols has stated in Vol. 4 (pp. 238 and 240) of his book 'eminent domain'. Natural assets of real property. When a tract of land taken by eminent domain contains ore, stone, coal, sand, gravel, peat loam, oil gas or other valuable deposits, constituting part of the realty, the existence of these features can be taken into consideration in determining the compensation so far as they affect the market value of the land. The same rule would be applicable where the land is covered with growing crops or trees capable of being converted into lumber. But even in such case, the market value of the land as land remains the test. The same rule would be applicable where the land is covered with growing crops or trees capable of being converted into lumber. But even in such case, the market value of the land as land remains the test. Hence, there can be no recovery for any of the forgoing elements valued separately as saleable items additional to the value of the land. Vegetable Growth as has been stated in the preceding section, the value of all vegetable growth upon land taken by eminent domain may be considered in so far as the existence of such growth has a bearing upon the enhancement in market value of such land. The rule has been conversely stated that such growth cannot be separately evaluated independently of the value of the land (underlining italics is ours ). ( 7 ) THE error in the basis of valuation made by the Civil Judge is that he has valued the land as land haying potential value for building sites and accordingly, he valued the land at Rs. 1-50 a sq. yd. If an orchard land is acquired and the land is valued having regard to its potential value as building - sites, no additional compensation can be awarded for the orchard minus the land. If the land is to be utilised for building sites then the plant growth has to be removed and in such a case, only the timber value or the fire wood value of the plant growth can be taken intq account. In some cases it may be more advantageous to a claimant to claim compensation on the basis that the land containing an orchard is suitable for building sites. Where claim is made on that basis of valuation, he cannot. claim compensation for the orchard except as already stated, to the timber value or the fire-wood value of the plant growth. There may be cases where it is more Advantageous for the claimant to claim the market value of the land acquired as an orchard or a plantation. If claim is made on that basis the value of the plant growth upon the land acquired has to be considered in so far as the existence of such plants has a bearing upon the enhancement in the market value of such land. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the claimant made a claim separately for the land and the plant growth. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the claimant made a claim separately for the land and the plant growth. He cannot be blamed for that error since the Land acquisition Officer has also made the same mistake. Both parties appear to have been misled by a kind of practice erroneously followed in some parts of the State, in valuing the land and the plant growth separately. If the appellant claims compensation on the basis of the land haying regard to its potentiality as building sites, this appeal has to fail altogether, since he did not contest the correctness of the, compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge for the land on that basis. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land valued as an orchard without regard to the potentiality of the land as building sites was more valuable and therefore, the appellant would prefer to have the land with the plant growth valued as an orchard or vine-yard. For such valuation, there is no evidence on record. The parties have to adduce evidence of transactions of sale of similar orchards or vine-yards; if no such evidence is available, necessary evidence for valuation following the capitalisation method should be adduced. Valuation made on Such basis could be counter checked by adducing evidence as to what it would have cost to raise an acre of similar orchard in the sixties. ( 9 ) IN this situation it is in the interest of justice to set aside part of the award and decree of the Court below in so far as it concerns the valuation of the land with the plant growth and remit the matter for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law Parties are at liberty to lead further evidence. The appellant is entitled to refund of Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. It is ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .