JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant was a lessee under emphyteutisis' which according to Blacks Law Dictionary means a perpetual lease in a landed estate granted to a tenant in perpetuity or for a long term of years, upon the reservation of an annual rent or canon, and upon the condition that the lessee should improve the property or otherwise from the former Portuguese state, had on November 3, 1915 and ever since he remained in possession of the demised land. By Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Gazettee, the entire extent of demised land measuring 63.875 square meters alongwith other lands situated in Kelpem village was acquired for submission of Seloulim Litigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 26, 1973 evaluated the compensation of the land in a sum of Rs. 55092. But, however, be held that since the Government as grantor had a right to take possession of demised land for a public purpose without compensation as per the covenant, under Art.22, the appellant was not entitled to any compensation. As there was a dispute as to the entitlement, he made a reference under section 30 of the Act to the District Court. The District Judge ultimately decided that the appellant was entitled to the compensation. On appeal to the High Court by the State in F.A. No. 82 of 1985, by its judgment and decree dated January 11, 1988, the High Court reversed the decree and held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation. 2. The admitted facts are that the land was uncultivated when it was granted to the appellant's father in November 15, 1915. Thereafter also it remained uncultivated. It was also further not disputed that there was no development on the land, on the date of acquisition. Either the predecessor of the appellant or the appellant himself, as per the lease, did not opt to purchase the same at any time. However, the High Court placing reliance on Art. 22 and condition No. I in support of its finding, held that the Government had unilateral right to take possession of the land for public purpose without am compensation and that therefore the appellant is not entitled to any compensation. However, the High Court placing reliance on Art. 22 and condition No. I in support of its finding, held that the Government had unilateral right to take possession of the land for public purpose without am compensation and that therefore the appellant is not entitled to any compensation. Art. 22 reads thus: Art. 22 -- "In all the concessions, whatever may be the area granted, the granting authority, the procedure of award and the sum total of advantages or liabilities inherent therein, the following clauses shall always be deemed in favour of the State, in the absence of an express mention to the contrary. Ist - The right to expropriate, without any compensation, the parcels of land for construction of works of acknowledged public utility, roads, viaducts, railways, telegraphic lines, bridges, docks, ports, health establishment, works of military defence and others." (emphasis supplied) 3. However, it could be seen that the Government instead of exercising its option as per the convenant and taking possession of the demised land, opted to acquire the land under the Act. The question is whether the lessee, who had taken the demised land on perpetual lease subject to the restrictive covenant, was entitled to any compensation; despite the restrictive covenant. It has to be made clear at the outset that, had the Government exercised its right under the covenant; taken possession and expropriated the demised land without paying any compensation, obviously, in terms of the lease, Government was entitled to do so. The lessee was bound by the restrictive covenant in the lease deed and was not entitled to claim any compensation. It is no longer 'res integra' that the Government, as an owner need not acquire its own land nor when it has full interest, the land acquisition officer, while evaluating the compensation need not determine the market value of the interest in the land had by the Government. But then the Government choose to acquire the land under the Act, without taking recourse to the covenants under the lease, the question emerges whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what proportion to the interest held by him in the acquired land, he could claim. But then the Government choose to acquire the land under the Act, without taking recourse to the covenants under the lease, the question emerges whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what proportion to the interest held by him in the acquired land, he could claim. In Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer, Sagar v. M.S. Seshagiri Rao & Anr., 1968 (2) SCR 892 , the facts were that the Government of Mysore granted a plot of land to the respondents with the added condition that "in the event of the Government requiring the land for any reason whatsoever, the grantee shall surrender the land to the Government without claiming any compensation", Government instead of taking recourse to the covenant, acquired the land under the Act but the land acquisition authority and the Dist. Court refused to grant any compensation to the claimant to the extent of his interest. The High Court reversed the finding of the Dist. Court and held that the claimant was entitled to the compensation for his interest held by the tenant. On appeal, this Court held that the State in a proceeding for acquisition, does not acquire its own interest in the land and the Collector offers the compensation and the Civil Court assessee the market value for acquisition of the interest of the private person which gets extinguished by compulsory acquisition and pays compensation equivalent to the market value of the interest. There is nothing in the Act which prevents the State from claiming in the proceedings for acquisition of land notified for acquisition that the interest proposed to be acquired is a restrictive interest. Then the court is bound to assess the interest which the lessee had and the Dist. Court has to determine the market value at the date of the notification under the Land Acquisition Act of the interest of the grantee in the land. Therefore, this Court while affirming the High Court's view partly modified that the market value of the interest of the grantees in the land as on the date of the notification shall be determined and paid to the grantees, in addition to the compensation paid for the improvement in the land. This view was reiterated in The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hosanagar v. K.S. Ramachandra Rao & Ors., AIR 1972 SC 2224 . This view was reiterated in The Special Land Acquisition Officer Hosanagar v. K.S. Ramachandra Rao & Ors., AIR 1972 SC 2224 . This Court held on the similar facts that the Land Acquisition Officer appears to have valued the rights of the Respondents in the lands acquired. Whether the valuation made by him is correct or not, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The appellant is bound by the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that the respondents are not entitled to any compensation in respect of the land acquired cannot be sustained in view of this Court's decision in Seshagiri Rao's case. 4. Thus it is clear that despite the restrictive covenant, the lessee is entitled to the extent of his interest in the acquired lands, since the Government, by necessary implication, had recognised the interest in the lease hold held by the lessee. The Land Acquisition Officer, instead of separately valuing the interest held by the appellant, chose to deny the claim which the High Court had upheld. The appellant as lessee, in the circumstances, is also having an interest in the land. The respective proportion in which the interest was held by the lessee has to he evaluated and compensation paid to the appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the High Court and direct the District Court to determine the proportion of the interest was held by appellant. We accordingly remit the matter to the Dist. Court to determine the proportion of the interest held by the appellant and to make the payment of compensation therefor according to law, within three months from the date of the receipt of the order. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.