Judgment :- P. SHANMUGAM, J. 1. The respondents are the appellants. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act. An extent of 9.11.00 hectares in Survey No. 309/1B of Varichikudi Village, Karaikal Taluk, among other lands, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Navodaya Vidayalaya School at Karaikal as per notification dated 30.01.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 22.02.1988, determined the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 519/- per Acre and a total compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,17,609.30 P. was paid to the six land owners which included a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for the standing trees. In the same award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards the value of the trees representing 50% share to the tenant, the respondent herein. Aggrieved by this award, the tenant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and on reference, th e learned Additional District Judge in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1988 awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,53,000/- in the following manner:— Item No. 1 Standing Trees Rs. 3,00,000/ Item No. 2 Ponds Rs. 48,000/- Item No. 3 compensation for loss of tenancy right Rs. 3,00,000/ Item No. 4 Compensation on account of utility Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 6,53,000/ The present appeal is against the judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal. 2. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to determine the compensation for the second time, after the lands having been valued and compensation awarded. According to him, the Court ought to have accepted either the capitalized method of valuation or market value of the land and cannot adopt both. He submits that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to support the case of the respondent as to the value of the trees and the value of the ponds and that there cannot be a separate valuation for the land and the ponds. He submitted that the whole approach of the lower Court to determine the compensation for the loss of tenancy right and utility of the land, is erroneous and illegal. 3. Mr. He submitted that the whole approach of the lower Court to determine the compensation for the loss of tenancy right and utility of the land, is erroneous and illegal. 3. Mr. K. Yamunan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the tenant had expended large amounts for raising crops and he could not be deprived of the anticipated income from them. According to him, the lease is perpetual and the lessee is not liable to be dispossessed by the landlord. The tenant ought to have been paid equally, if not more than the landlord. He submits that the valuation arrived at by the lower Court for the trees is just and proper and does not call for interference. 4. We have heard the counsel appearing for both the appellants and the respondent and considered the matter carefully. 5. In this case, we are concerned with 9.11.00 hectares of land in S. No. 309/1B. There are seven land owners and compensation was fixed as per Award No. 6147/86-87/C4 dated 22.2.1988 by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Revenue), Karaikal. Before the Award Officer, the respondent herein claimed only the share in the produce of the trees that were going to be cut. The Award Officer determined that the value of the trees will be shared equally between the land owners and the tenant on a 50-50 basis and accordingly determined the land owners share totalling Rs. 7,17,609.30 at the rate of Rs. 1,19,601.55 per head. Of the total compensation awarded, the share of the respondent/tenant was fixed at Rs. 42,816/- (Rs. 30,000/- towards tree value, Rs. 9,000/- as solatium and Rs. 3,816/- as additional amount at the rate of 12%). Thus, the total compensation that was awarded for these lands was Rs. 7,60,425.30. Thereafter, it is the tenant alone who filed a petition under Section 18 of the Act dated 22.2.1988 claiming that his right as a tenant has to be determined and considered and claimed Rs. 10,13,000/- as follows: (1) Value of the standing trees as on the date of the award: Rs. 1,50,000 (2) Anticipated profit on cutting the trees after their full growth Rs. 3,00,000 (3) Cost of eighty ponds: Rs. 48,000 (4) Compensation for the land acquired to the tenant as per law: Rs. 5,00,000 (5) Loss of utility by reason of severance recurring per annum: Rs. 15,000 Total: Rs. 1,50,000 (2) Anticipated profit on cutting the trees after their full growth Rs. 3,00,000 (3) Cost of eighty ponds: Rs. 48,000 (4) Compensation for the land acquired to the tenant as per law: Rs. 5,00,000 (5) Loss of utility by reason of severance recurring per annum: Rs. 15,000 Total: Rs. 10,13,000 As against the above claim, the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry has awarded Rs. 6,53,000/-. 6. According to the learned Government Pleader, the compensation that is payable towards the land that is acquired under the Act is to be as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 23 of the Act says that in determining the amount of compensation, the Court shall take into consideration first, the market value of the land, and secondly, the damages sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees. The market value of the land has to be decided on the basis of the evidence that may be let in by the claimant, and the burden is on the claimant. Section 11 of the Act says that the Land Acquisition Officer shall take into consideration the true area of the land and the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and also the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. There is no provision for separately valuing the tenancy right of the claimant apart from the market value on the standing trees. 7. It is well settled that market value means the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for the sale of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer exercises his statutory duty under Section 11 to hold an enquiry and determines the market value on the basis of well recognised principles. He has to enquire about the transactions of sale of similar lands and if such evidence is not available, then only he has to follow the alternative method of computation of market value by adoption of capitalization of the net income method, namely — (i) what is the average gross yield from the agricultural land? (ii) what is the cost of cultivation? and (iii) what is the average price of the agricultural commodity grown on the land? (ii) what is the cost of cultivation? and (iii) what is the average price of the agricultural commodity grown on the land? The best method of determination of market price of land under acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of similar land. In State of Kerala v. P.P. Hasan Koya (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1201), the Supreme Court held that in the case of land, its value, in general, can also be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in the past for land of similar quantity and similar condition and this is what must be meant in general by the market value in Section 23 of the Act. However, when the property sold is land with building and if it is found difficult to secure reliable evidence of the instances of sale of similar lands with buildings, the method which is generally resorted to in determining the value of the land with building is the method of capitalization of return. Therefore, once the market value has been determined on the basis of comparable sales, there is no scope for once again determining the compensation by capitalization method for the benefit of the tenant. As seen in this case, by an award dated 22.2.1988, the market value of the land has been determined, including the tenants share, by the Land Acquisition Officer. If at all there is any amount to be shared on the market value, like for instance, apportionment of the tenants share, he has to seek the same under Section 30 of the Act and if any dispute arises as to the apportionment, the Collector shall then refer such a dispute. 8. In Raghubans Narain v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 465), the Supreme Court held that the annual crop value method is not adequate for two reasons — (i) that the owner may not have so far put his property to its best use, and (ii) in a case like the case of Grove , it had not started giving maximum yield. Such a method of valuation by ascertaining the annual value of produce can and should be resorted to only when no other alternative method is available. Such a method of valuation by ascertaining the annual value of produce can and should be resorted to only when no other alternative method is available. If the respondent had raised a dispute as to the apportionment of the amount awarded or as to the persons to whom the sum or in part thereof is payable, then only the question of reference of a dispute under Section 30 of the Act will arise. In this case, no such reference has been made under Section 30 at the instance of the tenant. There cannot be a reference for determination of compensation under Section 18 of the Act as against the dispute relating to apportionment. Therefore, the reference itself has to be confined only to the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 9. In State of Haryana v. Gurucharan Singh (1995 Supp (2) S.C.C. 637), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that compensation for land as well as for fruit-bearing trees cannot be determined separately. Their Lordships have held as under: — “It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit-bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given. When the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. When the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be a suitable multiplier.” Their Lordships have also held as under: — “Though the Collector had committed a palpable error of law in separately awarding compensation to the land as well as fruit-bearing trees, it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of Section 25 of the Act. The Collector, civil court and the High Court should have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation. They awarded much more than what the claimant would justly and fairly be entitled to. Therefore, further enhancement of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the price index is clearly illegal.” 10. In Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy & Ors. (JT 2002 (3) SC 58), their Lordships have held that it is settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and building or the land with fruit-bearing trees standing thereon, value of both is to be determined not as separate units but as one unit. Their Lordships have further held as follows: — ”Therefore, it would be open to the land acquisition officer or the Court to assess the land with all its advantages and fix the market value thereof on the basis of comparable sale instances. In case, where comparable sale instances are not available and where there is reliable and acceptable evidence on record of the annual income, market value could be assessed and determined on the basis of net annual income multiplied by appropriate multiplier for its capitalization. In the case of fruit-bearing trees its net yield is to be taken into consideration, that is to say, by deducting expenses incurred for getting the yield and also the value of the timber and expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land. For capitalizing the income, previously income from the gilt-edged securities was the basis, but thereafter rate of interest in nationalized banks where deposits are quite safe is taken into consideration as proper basis. If the interest rate in a nationalized bank or other safe investments, on a long term fixed deposit, say is 10% and the yield from the trees p.a. is Rs. 5,000/-, then for getting the said income, deposits of Rs. If the interest rate in a nationalized bank or other safe investments, on a long term fixed deposit, say is 10% and the yield from the trees p.a. is Rs. 5,000/-, then for getting the said income, deposits of Rs. 50,000/- would be required to be made.” 11. In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector ( (1994) 6 S.C.C. 456 = 1994 2 L.W. 732), their Lordships have held that the market value of the agricultural land has to be assessed having regard to availability of irrigation facility on the land, and therefore, the irrigation well in an acquired agricultural land, cannot have a value apart from the value of the agricultural lands itself. Their Lordships rejected the claim of the estimated construction costs of the irrigation wells of agricultural lands as basis for awarding compensation for such irrigation wells independently of the compensation awardable for the agricultural lands for the benefit of which such wells existed. 12. In Ratan Kumar Tandon v. State of U.P. ( (1997) 2 S.C.C. 161 ), the Supreme Court has held that the burden is on the claimant to prove the valuation of trees and he cannot rely on a mere estimate made by the Forest Officer. In that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the leasehold rights and held that the compensation would be restricted to the interest in the land held by the claimant to the extent to which the claimant would be entitled to get compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act towards his interest in the acquired land. The interest consists of right, and title to the compensation. The Supreme Court was dealing with the land belonging to the Government and their entitlement to use the land and therefore, the claimant was not entitled for the full compensation. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the judgment of this Court reported in Collector of Madras v. Pattabirama Reddy ( 1976 (1) M.L.J. 178 = (1975) 88 L.W. 42 S.N. (DB)), wherein their Lordships held that the property acquired should be evaluated as one unit whereby both the interests of the lessor and the lessee are evaluated and by the adoption of a reasonable yardstick the total compensation money could be apportioned between the two interests, namely, the lessor and the lessee. This judgment will not apply to the facts of the case on hand. This judgment will not apply to the facts of the case on hand. Firstly, the necessary parties in the litigation for the apportionment of the interests in the land, namely, the landlords, are not before the Court and the compensation for the land has already been awarded and paid. Therefore, if at all the claimant is entitled for any compensation as a person having interest on the land, he will be entitled only for apportionment in the amount already awarded for the land. The claimant could not seek further amount separately as market value representing his leasehold right as a tenant. 14. Assuming for the sake of argument that the tenant can claim compensation of the market value by adopting a multiplier method, for which there is no scope, the findings of the court below are without any basis. The respondent/claimant did not question the land value awarded to the land owners. The separate claim on the basis of the tenancy right on the land has to be apportioned between the claimant and the landlords. In this case, we are concerned only with the award of compensation for the trees, and inasmuch as the compensation has already been awarded for the land and the standing crops as per Section 23 of the Act, there is no scope for awarding compensation under four heads, as done by the lower court. There is absolutely no material to show the number of trees, its production cost and such other particulars in order to determine the value. The claimant who has got the burden to establish the value of the trees has failed to discharge the same. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value at Rs. 60,000/- for casurina grove, and there is no acceptable evidence whatsoever to claim that the value of the trees should be higher. The Lower Court in considering this aspect, has stated as follows: — “The Agriculture Department in their valuation certificate has simply mentioned that the value for the casurina grove is Rs. 60,000/-. There are no details about the number of trees or the total weight if cut and removed for the purpose of selling them as firewood. In an extent of 3 velis of land 3 years old casurina trees will easily fetch 3 lakhs of rupees at Rs. 1 lakh per veli at the then prevailing cost at Rs. 60,000/-. There are no details about the number of trees or the total weight if cut and removed for the purpose of selling them as firewood. In an extent of 3 velis of land 3 years old casurina trees will easily fetch 3 lakhs of rupees at Rs. 1 lakh per veli at the then prevailing cost at Rs. 600/- per tree as deposed by P.W.1. Therefore, the claim for the standing trees at the time of notification is fixed at Rs. 1 lakh per veli though the petitioner has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-.” The learned Judge has put the burden on the Agriculture Department and the Land Acquisition Officer to establish the nature of the tree and the value of it if it is cut and removed. The learned Judge also had not deducted the cost and expenditures involved in that process to arrive at the net value of the tree. Excepting the self-serving testimony, there is no acceptable evidence for the value of the trees. Hence, we do not find any ground to support the judgement insofar as the value of the trees is concerned. The Court has no power to award the cost for ponds separately without any further material and further, there is no material to support the value of the ponds which are said to be 80 in numbers. 15. For all these reasons, the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. No costs.