D. H. SHUKLA, S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE first appeals under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act are filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer branch No. 4 Surat challenging the common judgment and orders passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Surat in land reference case Nos. 5 and 8 of 1972 respectively. First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 arises out of judgment in land reference case No. 5 of 1972 while First Appeal No. 179 of 1976 arises out of the judgment in land reference case No. 8 of 1972. The claimant in land reference case No. 8 of 1972 has also filed cross objections in first Appeal No. 179 of 1976. ( 2 ) A few relevant facts leading to these appeal may now be seen. The acquired property was situated on Kotshafil road in the city of Surat which was Nondh No. 2432-B of Ward No. 8. It comprised of two Survey Numbers 2432 and 2558 which were consolidated and formed into Nonth No. 2432-B he acquired property consisted of one house and the land below it. The total area of the acquired property was 112-2 sq. yds. The acquired property originally belonged to the grandfather of the respondent in First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 which arises out of land reference case No. 5 of 1972 on the file of the trial Court. The father of the claimant of land reference case No. 5 of 1972 inherited the property in question from his father. The father of the claimant in land reference case No. 5 of 1972 died in 1969. The acquired property fell to the share of the claimant of land reference case No. 5 of 1972 in partition that tools place on 30-4-1966 amongst the father and brothers of the claimant and the claim of land reference case no. 5 of 1972. As stated earlier the acquired property originally consisted of two survey numbers or Nondh numbers at the time of the partition that is Nondh Nos. 2558 and 2432. The property bearing Nondh No. 2432 was admeasuring 56 sq. yds. and the property bearing Nondh No. 2558 was admeasuring 56. 2 sq. yds. Sometime after the said partition the acquired property was given new Nondh No. 2432 13 as slated above. 2558 and 2432. The property bearing Nondh No. 2432 was admeasuring 56 sq. yds. and the property bearing Nondh No. 2558 was admeasuring 56. 2 sq. yds. Sometime after the said partition the acquired property was given new Nondh No. 2432 13 as slated above. The whole of the acquired property being Nondh No. 2432 was sought to be acquired by the State of Gujarat for the road widening purpose at the suggestion of the Surat Municipal Corporation. The notification under sec. 4 was issued on 2-9-1975 arid it was published in the Government gazette on 30-9-1965. Section 6 notification was published in the Government gazette on 24-3-1966. The claimant was served with a notice under sec. 9 of the Act. He preferred his claim before the land acquisition officer in response to that notice. It may be noted at this stage that the acquired properly was a lease hold property from the Government for a period of 99 years and on the said land which was leased by the Government in favour of the predecessor in title of the claimant of land reference case No. 5 of 1972 a two storeyed structure was put up by his predecessor. It is an admitted position between the parties that the structure stood on the entire land which was leased by the Government under two lease deeds Exs. 25 and 26 which were executed by the then Collector of Surat in favour of the predecessorin title of the claimant of land reference case No. 5 of 1972. The claimant in land reference case No. 5 of 1972 claimed before the L. A. Officer Rs. 44 888 as compensation for the acquired lease hold land and Rs. 18 0 as compensation for the structure which belonged to him and which originally was put up by his predecessor in title on the land which was taken on lease for 99 years from the Government. On the claimed amount solatium at 15% was also prayed for. So far as the structure standing on the acquired land was concerned it was already let out to a tenant who had put up a factory therein. The tenant of the said superstructure also put forward his claim for compensation before the land acquisition officer. He claimed Rs. On the claimed amount solatium at 15% was also prayed for. So far as the structure standing on the acquired land was concerned it was already let out to a tenant who had put up a factory therein. The tenant of the said superstructure also put forward his claim for compensation before the land acquisition officer. He claimed Rs. 30 0 for loss of business as he had to shift his business from the tenant premises which were demolished after acquisition to other premises at Udhna. He also claimed Rs. 5000/ for dismantling and removing the machineries which he had affixed in the structure which was let out to him. He also claimed Rs. 500/as retrenchment compensation paid by him to his workers. ( 3 ) SO far as the claim of the claimant who was the lessee Or the land from the Government was concerned the land acquisition officer evaluated the land in question at Rs. 120/per sq. yd. against the claim of Rs. 430/per sq. yd as put forward by the claimant. However the land acquisition officer did not award any amount to the claimant by way of his claim for compensation for the land acquired as in the view of the land acquisition officer the land belonged to the Government and the claimant was a mere lessee for 99 years and consequently he was not entitled according to 2 Land Acquisition Officer to any amount of compensation for the land acquired which did not belong to him but belonged to the Government. So far as the compensation for the super structure was concerned he however awarded Rs. 6200/as compensation for the super structure and Rs. 930/as solatium. ( 4 ) SO far as the claim of the tenant of the super structure was concerned the land acquisition officer offered him Rs. 500/for loss or business and Rs. 600/for dismantling and shifting charges of the machineries thus in all Rs. 1100. 00. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the aforesaid offer of the Land Acquisition Officer Surat the concerned claimants sought references under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court at Surat. 500/for loss or business and Rs. 600/for dismantling and shifting charges of the machineries thus in all Rs. 1100. 00. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the aforesaid offer of the Land Acquisition Officer Surat the concerned claimants sought references under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court at Surat. The claimant who was the lessee of the land from the Government and who was the owner of the super structure got his reference registered as land reference case No. 5 of 1972 before the District Court:- While the tenant of the super structure got his land reference registered as land reference case No. 8 of 1972 Both these land references were heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Surat. As they arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings both the references were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment after recording common evidence. ( 6 ) BEFORE the District Court the claimant in land reference case No. 5 of 1972 claimed Rs. 18 0 as compensation for the super structure and Rs. 6 66 as solatium and he also claimed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 200/per sq. yd. The learned Extra Assistant Judge took the view that the super structure in question was required to be valued at Rs. 19 560 Deducting Rs. 6200/which were already granted for the super structure by the Land Acquisition Officer the trial Court granted Rs. 13 260 to the claimant in land reference case No. 5 of 1972. So far as the claim of compensation in land reference No. 5 of 1972 for land was concerned the trial court took the view that the acquired land was required to be valued at the market rate of Rs. 200/per sq. yd. For that purpose the learned trial Judge relied upon a decision of the District Court Surat in companion matter being land reference case No. 6 of 1972 where the award was to the tune of Rs. 250/per sq. yd. for adjoining land which was also sought to be acquired under a notification which was very much proximate in time to the land acquisition notification in the present case. In land reference case No. 6 of 1972 the notification under sec. 4 was issued on 1-7-1965 while in the present cases the land acquisition notification under sec 4 was issued on 2-9-1965. In land reference case No. 6 of 1972 the notification under sec. 4 was issued on 1-7-1965 while in the present cases the land acquisition notification under sec 4 was issued on 2-9-1965. Consequently the trial Court found that the land under acquisition was required to be valued at Rs. 250/ per sq. yd. but as the claimant had restricted his claim for the land to Rs. 200/per sq. yd. he was ex d to be paid the full claim. Thereafter the trial Court addressed itself it) the further question as to what should be the actual apportionment out of the said compensation amount which would represent the interest of the claimant in the land concerned. As the land was a lease hold land which belonged to Government but which was in possession of the claimant from the times of his predecessors in title under leases of 99 years with renewal clauses which gave an option to the concerned lesses to get the leases renewed the trial Court took the view that the claimant was entitled to some amount of compensation for the acquired land and he could not have been totally denied compensation on this count as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Trial Judge placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 202 of 1978 decided on 26/27-10-1971 by M. U. Shah and P. D. Desai JJ wherein M. U. Shah J. speaking for the Bench had observed in similar circumstances that when the claimant was in possession of the lease hold land from the Government under a lease of 99 years which contained a renewal clause giving an option to the lessee to get the lease renewed from the Government and if such land came to be acquired such a lessee of Government land was entitled to get 4 1/2 Annas in a rupee out of the market value of the land concerned at the time of sec. 4 notification. The trial Court however possibly referring to an earlier part of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench took the view that the claimant in the present case was entitled to compensation at the rate of 6 Annas in a rupee from the total market value of the acquired land computed at the rate of Rs. 200/per sq. yd. The trial Court however possibly referring to an earlier part of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench took the view that the claimant in the present case was entitled to compensation at the rate of 6 Annas in a rupee from the total market value of the acquired land computed at the rate of Rs. 200/per sq. yd. Accordingly the trial Court awarded to the claimant of land reference case No. 5 of 1972 an amount of Rs. 8 416 representing his 6 Anna share in a rupee in the market value of the land. On this amount was granted solatium. He also held the claimant to be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 13 360 for the super structure and on the said amount also he was entitled to get 15% solatium and on the additional amount usual interest at 4 1/2 from the date of taking over at possession till payment was also granted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of of trial Court in compensation case No. 5 of 1972 has preferred First Appeal No. 178 of 1976. ( 7 ) SO far as land reference case No. 8 of 1972 went as we have stated above the claimant in that case was the tenant of the superstructure on the acquired land. His contention before the trial Court was that he was entitled to receive sufficient amount by way of compensation for the loss of business and shifting charges as well as the amount of retrenchment compensation which he had to pay to his workers because of disturbance in the business brought about by the acquisition proceedings. The trial Court granted him Rs. 3 0 by way of loss of business having computed at the rate of Rs. 500/per month loss of business for six months after the having held that the claimant had suffered loss of business for six months. He also granted Rs. 1100/by way of removal charges and refixation of his machinery in the new premises at Udhna to which the tenant had to shift because of acquisition proceedings. The trial Court accordingly calculated Rs. 4100/to be payable to the tenant of the superstructure and deducting Rs. 1100/which the Land Acquisition Officer had granted to him an additional amount of Rs. 1100/by way of removal charges and refixation of his machinery in the new premises at Udhna to which the tenant had to shift because of acquisition proceedings. The trial Court accordingly calculated Rs. 4100/to be payable to the tenant of the superstructure and deducting Rs. 1100/which the Land Acquisition Officer had granted to him an additional amount of Rs. 3 0 was awarded by the trial Court to the tenant of the super structure in land reference case No. 8 of 1972. On this amount interest at 45 from the date of possession till payment was awarded. The Special Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the learned Extra Assistant Judge in land reference case No. 8 of 1972 has preferred First Appeal No. 179 of 1976. The claimant in land reference case No. 8 of 1972 who was the tenant of the super structure has filed cross objections in the said Government appeal. ( 8 ) SO far as First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 is concerned Mr. J. R Nanavati learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant Special Land Acquisition Officer raised the following contentions:- (1) That the land under acquisition was fully covered by the superstructure at the time of acquisition and consequently the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error of law in evaluating the land and the super structure separately and in awarding separate amounts for the land as well as the super structure thereon. (3) As the claimants had failed to lead sufficient evidence to show the exact value of his leasehold interest in land and as there was no evidence on the basis of which apportionment can be made out of the total compensation which would be held to be payable to the claimant by way of acquisition of all his interest in the property under acquisition the claim petition as filed by the claimant was liable to fail as a whole and the offer of the Land Acquisition Officer was required to be upheld as a final one. In short the submission of Mr. Nanavati was that the learned trial Judge ought to have dismissed the claim petition in its entirety. ( 9 ) MR. In short the submission of Mr. Nanavati was that the learned trial Judge ought to have dismissed the claim petition in its entirety. ( 9 ) MR. Vyas learned Advocate appearing for the respondent claimant on the other hand supported the judgment and award of the trial Court and submitted that there was no flaw in the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge. ( 10 ) SO far as the first submission of Mr. Nanavati is concerned his contention was that in the present case on the date of sec. 4 notification the acquired property being Nondh No. 2432-B in Ward No. 8 in the city of Surat comprised of a fully built up two storeyed structure which was located on the entire land and the acquired land itself was at the relevant time a lease hold land which the claimant was holding and the lease bold land itself belonged to Government. This land had fully merged in the structure and consequently the land could not have been separately valued for the purpose of compensation as distinguished from separate valuation of the super structure thereon. ( 11 ) IN order to support his aforesaid contention Mr. Nanavati learned very heavily on a Supreme Court decision in the case of the STATE OF KERALA V. P. P. HASAN KOYN A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1201. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision had an occasion to consider the question of determination of compensation in respect of the land with buildings. The Supreme Court in that connection observed:"in determining compensation payable in respect of land with buildings compensation cannot be determined by assessing the value of the land and the break up value of the buildings separately. The land and the buildings constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. " for coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Supreme Court relied upon a Privy Council judgment in NARAYANA GAJAPATIRAJI V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VIZAGAPATAM 66 INDIAN APPEALS 104 P. 114 (AIR 1939 P. C. 98 AT P. 102 ). It was further observed in that connection by the Supreme Court: "an instance of a sale which is proximate in time to the date of the notification under sec. It was further observed in that connection by the Supreme Court: "an instance of a sale which is proximate in time to the date of the notification under sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of land similarly situate and with similar advantages and which is proved to be a transaction between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser would form a reliable guide for determining the market value. The value which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from a willing purchaser in respect of a house generally depends upon a variety of circumstances including the nature of the construction its age situation the amenities available its special advantages and a host of other circumstances. When the property sold is land with building it is often difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands with buildings proximate in time to the date of the notification under sec. 4. Wherefore the mind which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes is the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings. " ( 12 ) IN the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court while construing sec. 23 in the light of the other relevant sections of the Act held that The purpose of acquisition is to acquire all interests which clog the right of the government to full ownership of the land i. e. when land is notified for acquisition the Government expresses its desire to acquire all outstanding interests collectively. It is therefore the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to determine in the first instance compensation which is to be paid for extinction of those interests and then to apportion the compensation amongst the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. When a reference under sec. 18 is made to the Court it has to assess the value of the unit and then to apportion the compensation among person entitled thereto. When a reference under sec. 18 is made to the Court it has to assess the value of the unit and then to apportion the compensation among person entitled thereto. ( 13 ) THUS as per the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court when the land which has been fully constructed upon is acquired along with the super structure thereon the entire super structure which would necessarily include the land below it has to be valued and its market value as one composite unit is to be determined and the value of such unit on the date of the notification his to be paid. If in a given case it is found that one composite unit comprised of various interests of different persons a further task of apportionment of this compensation amongst these various interested persons will have to be undertaken thereafter. But in no case; the break up value of the acquired land and the structure standing thereon has to be resorted to while determining the compensation in such cases. ( 14 ) IN the present case as we have already mentioned earlier the learned trial Judge computed by way of break up value the market value of the land below the structure and also separately evaluated the structure thereon. This method adopted by the learned trial Judge is patently contrary to the accepted method of valuation as laid down by the Supreme Court in P. P. Hasan Koyas case (supra ). It is trite to say that when the structure which is constructed upon the acquired land in its entirety is the subject matter of acquisition the land below the structure must of necessity enter into consideration while the structure as a whole is evaluated. Once the structure is evaluated no question of separately evaluating the land below the structure remains for consideration. In the face of the aforesaid settled legal position the judgment and award passed by the learned trial Judge in the present case appear to suffer from a patent error of law. It is therefore necessary to concentrate on the market value of the structure which stood on the acquired land in its entirety. The assessment of this market value in its turn of necessity would also include valuation of the land below the structure as the land is completely merged into it. It is therefore necessary to concentrate on the market value of the structure which stood on the acquired land in its entirety. The assessment of this market value in its turn of necessity would also include valuation of the land below the structure as the land is completely merged into it. The claimant therefore in no case could have been awarded by way of any further break up value any separate compensation for the land below the structure. Consequently it must he held that the learned trial Judge had erred in law in awarding separate amount of Rs. 8 416 to the respondent claimant by way of compensation for the acquired land when the trial court evaluated the structure over the very same land and awarded compensation for the structure to the claimant. ( 15 ) IT is necessary to keep in view a few facts which emerge on the record of this case. In the present case the evidence of instances of sale of similar lauds with buildings proximate in time to the date of notification under sec. 4 is not on record. The super structure in question which was the subject matter of acquisition was already let out to the tenant for business and was yielding monthly rental of Rs. 180. 00. Under these circumstances as laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the method which can generally be resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes would be the method of capitalization of return actually received or which might reasonably be received from the land and the buildings. On the facts of the present case therefore the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court would squarely apply and the learned trial Judge ought to have computed the compensation accordingly. Consequently it must therefore be held that the learned trial Judge on the facts of this case was not justified in separately evaluating the market value of the land below the structure and in awarding the amount of Rs. 8 416 as compensation under a separate head by way of the market value of the acquired land below the structure. To that extent the award passed by the learned trial Judge will have to be set aside. The first contention of Mr. Nanavati has therefore got to be upheld. 8 416 as compensation under a separate head by way of the market value of the acquired land below the structure. To that extent the award passed by the learned trial Judge will have to be set aside. The first contention of Mr. Nanavati has therefore got to be upheld. ( 16 ) THAT takes us to the second contention of Mr. Nanavati. We must at the outset say that the second contention of Mr. Nanavati pressed for an extreme view. Mr. Nanavati submitted that on the facts of the present case the land below the structure was a leasehold property and not a freehold land. The claimant himself was the lessee under two lease deeds Exs. 25 and 26 those lease deeds were fur 99 years. They were shortly to expire when the land in question was subjected to the present acquisition proceedings. Under these circumstances submitted Mr. Nanavati it was for the claimant to lead proper evidence to show as to what was the extent of his lease hold interest in the land below the structure and his attempt to evaluate the structure alone without any further attempt to specify the extent of his lease hold interest in the land below the structure would result in total negation of his claim and hence the entire claims petition should have been rejected. ( 17 ) WE are not in a position to accept this extremist contention raised by Mr. Nanavati on behalf of the appellant. As we have noted above the Division Bench judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 202 of 1968 decided by M. U. Shah and P. D. Desai JJ. on 26/27-10-1971 has in terms laid down that in cases where the claimant is a lessee under 99 years lease from the Government and when he has put up a structure thereon and when such land and the structure over the land are made the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings the claimant cannot be said to be not an interested person at all and his interest in the acquired property has got to be properly evaluated. It is not as if that he is a non entity. Thus from the evidence on record an attempt has to be made to evaluate the acquired interest of the claimant and to award just compensation accordingly. It is not as if that he is a non entity. Thus from the evidence on record an attempt has to be made to evaluate the acquired interest of the claimant and to award just compensation accordingly. ( 18 ) IN the present case the claimant has made an attempt to evaluate the total value of the super structure which admittedly belonged to him and which was made the subject matter of acquisition proceedings along with the land over which it stood. The claimant had put forward his claim for Rs. 18 0 for compensation for the super structure. The structure was built by him over the acquired land. As per the evidence of the claimant Chandulal Jagjivandas Ex. 21 the land on which the super structure stood belonged to the Government. It was leased by Government to his predecessor in title. The super structure was a pucca built construction. The flooring of the super structure was paved with tiles and stones. The walls of his super structure were of benefits and mortars with a plaster of cement. The entire super structure consisted of the ground floor and the first floor. This entire super structure was leased out by him for the purpose of business to tenant Amratlal Chunilal who was the claimant of land reference case No. 8 of 1972 the award wherein is the subject matter of companion First Appeal No. 179 of 1976 to which we shall turn a little later. It is therefore clear that a valuable super structure existed on the acquired land and the entire super structure by acquisition got demised because of the acquisition of the land below the structure along with the structure. For evaluating the structure the claimant took assistance of witness Jashwantbhai Hiralal Mehta Ex. 30 who was holding a degree of B. E. (Civil) He was a Government approved valuer for the purpose of income tax wealth tax gift tax and estate duty. He was also a valuer approved by the Life Insurance Corporation. The said witness deposed that the claimant in land reference case No. 5 of 1972 had approached him for the purpose of getting his property valued as well as for his comments on the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquired properly. To recapitulate at this stage the Land Acquisition Officer had granted to the claimant Rs. To recapitulate at this stage the Land Acquisition Officer had granted to the claimant Rs. 6200/by way of compensation for the structure. It is thereafter that the claimant had consulted witness Jashwantbhai Mehta and had made an effort to get the structure valued through him. Witness Jashwantbhai Mehta adopted two methods of evaluating the property. He of course could not visit the structure because it was already demolished after it was acquired. But he did value on the basis of the data which he gathered from award of the Land Acquisition Officer. The witness adopted two methods for working out valuation of the super structure. He valued the super structure on the basis of the annual rental income. The second method Which he had adopted was of valuing the structure on the basis of the depreciated value of the building. But he ultimately stated in his deposition that in his opinion the correct approach to value such rented property would be on the basis of the annual rental income and therefore he valued the acquired supper structure on the basis of annual rental income. On the basis of the aforesaid two methods which he had resorted to he came to the valuation of the property acquired at Rs. 20 480 as its depreciated value and on the basis of annual rental income it came to Rs. 19 560 The witness further stated that the annual rental income of the acquired super structure was arrived at by taking thee monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 180/which admittedly the tenant of the super structure was giving to the respondent claimant in the present case; that all the facts and necessary data were mentioned in the valuation report Ex. 32 which the witness had prepared. ( 19 ) AS we have already stated above the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in P. P. Hasan Koyas case (supra) has pointed out that when the property sold is land with building and when it is difficult to secure reliable evidence of instances of sale of similar lands with buildings proximate in time to the date of the notification under sec. 4 the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes is the method of capitalization of return actually received from the land and the buildings. 4 the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with buildings especially those used for business purposes is the method of capitalization of return actually received from the land and the buildings. on the facts of the present case the aforesaid method of capitalization was required to be followed as the land was constructed upon and the super structure was already let out to a tenant for business purpose. Hence the relevant date was available for the purpose of capitalizing the rental income from the structure. We therefore find that the method adopted by valuer witness Jashwantbhai Ex. (3) for evaluating the structure in question on the basis of the capitalization of the annual rental income was a correct method. As per the said method valuation of the structure is worked out at Rs. 19 560. ( 20 ) MR. J. R. Nanavati appearing for the appellant is right when he submitted that witness Jashwantbhai Mehta had made no effort to separrately evaluate the lease hold interest of the claimant so far as the land below the structure went. But as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in P. P. Hasan Koyas case (supra) once the total market value of the structure with building is arrived at the Court has to make efforts to apportion compensation amongst different interested persons the moment it is shown that in computation of the said compensation amount diverse interests intervene. In the present case the building stood on the lease hold land wherein the claimant had lessees interest and the reversion vested in the State. Thus the value of the extent of the Government interest in the land will have to be segregated and the net balance would represent the sole interest of the claimant in the land below the structure as well as the structure and that would represent the correct and reasonable compensation which would be awardable to the claimant. . ( 21 ) WE therefore accordingly proceed to apportion the respective interests of the State as well as the claimant in the lease hold land over which the structure in question stood with a view to ultimately find out the net interest of the claimant in the total compensation which can be awarded to him for acquisition of the structure alongwith land below it. For that purpose we can rely on the lease deeds Exs. 25 and 26 on the record of this case. The lease deed Ex. 25 is dated 1 This lease deed is executed by the then Collector of Surat on behalf of the then Government of Bombay granting lease for 99 years expiring on 31-7-1966. The said lease pertained to the property Nondh No. 2432 in ward no. 8 in the city of Surat. That was executed in favour of the predecessor in title of the respondent claimant Under that lease deed annual rent fixed to be payable to the Government was Rs. 19. 4 The other lease deed is Ex. 25 dated 15 11-1950. That also recognised the rights of the predecessor in title of the respondentclaimant as occupant of the property S. No. 2558 of Ward No. 8 in the city of Surat under the lease for 99 years expiring on 31-7-1966. Under this lease annual rent payable to Government was mentioned at Rs. 113 As we have already stated above both these lands bearing Nondh Nos. 2432 and 2558 of ward No. 8 of Surat City ultimately were amalgamated and they then formed composite No. 2432-B which along with the super structure was the subject matter of acquisition in the present proceedings. Thus the annual rent payable to government for the acquired land bearing Nondh No. 2432-B would work out at Rs. 132. 5 on the basis of the aforesaid two lease deeds Exs. 25 and 26. The approved valuer Jashwantbhai Mehta Ex. 30 has evaluated the structure on the acquired land on the basis of the monthly rental income of Rs. 180/which the respondent claimant was getting from the tenant of the structure. The annual rental income would work out to Rs. 2 160 This income would naturally cover the usufruct from the land below the structure. The claimant out of the annual rental income which he received from the super structure had to part with Rs. 132-50 in favour of the Government under the aforesaid two leases Exs. 25 and 26. Thus out of the total annual rental income of Rs. 2160/the Governments share would be represented by Rs. 132-50. Thus the Governments share out of the rental income would roughly be 1/16th. Witness Jashwantbhai Menta Ex. 30 while arriving at the figure of Rs. 132-50 in favour of the Government under the aforesaid two leases Exs. 25 and 26. Thus out of the total annual rental income of Rs. 2160/the Governments share would be represented by Rs. 132-50. Thus the Governments share out of the rental income would roughly be 1/16th. Witness Jashwantbhai Menta Ex. 30 while arriving at the figure of Rs. 19 560 for the value of the super structure on the basis of the capitalization of annual rental income therefrom has in his report Ex. 32 taken annual rental income of Rs. 2 160 and on that basis he has capitalized the rental income for arriving at the aforesaid figure deducting the outgoings by way of taxation etc. for the structure in question. Thus annual rental income of Rs. 2160/resulted into total market value of Rs. 19560. 00. If the Government share in the rental income was 1/16th then from the capitalised figure 1 will have to be deducted to segregate the value of Governments interest in the lease hold land in question. Thus if 1/16th portion representing Governments share from the total market value of Rs. 19560 as arrived at by the valuer Jashwantbhai Mehta is computed we come to a figure of Rs. 1 222 being 1/16th of Rs. 19560. 00. Thus Rs. 1 222 roughly would represent the extent of Governments interest in the acquired property in question which consisted of the super structure standing over the acquired land. Deducting Rs. 1 222 which represents the Governments share thus calculated out of the capitalised value of Rs. 19 560 the net figure arrived at is Rs. 18 338 This amount can safely be taken as the extent of claimants interest in the super structure and the land below it which were subjected to land acquisition proceedings. Thus Rs. 18 338 would be the net share of the claimant in the compensation amount thus computed. Mr. Nanavati appearing for the appellant fairly stated that this figure can safely be taken as the amount representing the value of the claimants share in the acquired property on the date of the acquisition. As we have already stated above the claimant has restricted his claim for the super structure and the land to Rs. 18 0 before the Land Acquisition Officer. As we have already stated above the claimant has restricted his claim for the super structure and the land to Rs. 18 0 before the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus he cannot get anything more than 18 0 way of his interesting the land with the value of the super structure. The figure of Rs. 18 0 will represent his sole interest in the super structure and the land below it after segregating the share of the Government as we have already detailed above. Out of the amount of Rs. 18 0 being valuation of the super structure the land and the land acquisition officer has already granted Rs. 6 200 Thus the respondent claimant will be entitled to an additional amount Rs. 11 800 by way of value of the super structure and the land below it which would be payable to him. He will also be entitled to 15% solatium which comes to Rs. 1970. 00. Thus the respondent claimant will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 13 770 way of further compensation which can be held awardable to him. On this figure of Rs. 13 770 to which the claimant is held to be entitled he would also be entitled to 42% interest from the date of taking over of possession till payment. As a result of the aforesaid discussion First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 as filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer will have to be partly allowed. The order of the trial court in land reference case. No. 5 of 1972 is accordingly set aside and instead it is declared that the respondentclaimant in land reference case No. 5/72 shall be entitled to receive an additional compensation of Rs. 13 770 with 42% interest thereon from the date of delivery of possession till payment. The respondent claimant will also be entitled to proportionate costs on this amount all throughout. To the extent his claim is rejected there will be no order as to costs all throughout. F. A. 178/76 party allowed:- F. A. 179/76 dismissed. .