JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Reference Court by which claim for compensation made by the appellant on account of the acquisition of the lands bearing Sy.No.7/1B and 4/1B measuring 20 acres and 5 acres has been rejected. 2. Facts in nutshell giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, admittedly lands in question bearing Sy.No.7/1B and Sy.No.4/1B measuring 20 acres and 05 acres respectively situate in Karvale Badaga village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District are sagu bane lands. The aforesaid lands were required for the purpose of developing golf courts. Thereupon the respondent issued a notification dated 02.12.1981 under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 13.8.1984. Thereafter an award was passed on 24.05.1985 by which the claim of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has no title in respect of the land in question. Thereafter a notice dated 16.07.1985 was issued under Section 12(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Reference Court by impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009 has dismissed the claim of the appellant, interaliaon the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove that the lands in question was either subjected to land revenue or at any point of time was cultivated by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Cheekere Kariyappa Poovaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1993 KAR 2959, submitted that the appellant was granted certain privileges in respect of the lands in question and if the government wanted to deprive the appellant of the aforesaid privileges and concessions, the respondents had acquired such interest under the Act and thereafter are liable to pay compensation by evaluating their limited interest even though they may not be proprietors of the land in question. It is further submitted that the aforesaid limited interest has to be quantified and the appellant is entitled to compensation in this regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. It is further submitted that the aforesaid limited interest has to be quantified and the appellant is entitled to compensation in this regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the land in question is a forest land and bane holders have no title in respect of the land held by them. It is further submitted that the aforesaid land vests in the State Government, however certain privileges are accorded to the bane holders. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed by the learned AGA on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T.V. Ramaraju Naidu 1975 (2) Kar.L.J. However, it was fairly submitted that said bane holders are entitled to compensation in respect of the privileges held by them in the lands in question. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and have perused the record. A bane tenure only constitutes certain privileges to be enjoyed by the agriculturists holding attached wet lands and there is no concept of ownership to bane lands. The aforesaid view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nandinaravanda Medappa Vs. Nandinaravanda Ganapahty, (1979) 2 Kant. LJ. Thereafter the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nandinaravanda Medappasupra has held that, if a privilege is granted in respect of the sagu bane lands, the aforesaid privilege would necessarily show some restricted interest in these lands. It has further been held that if bane lands are put to acquisition, and the bane holders are deprived of their limited interest in respect of the aforesaid lands, then their limited interest in the aforesaid lands is required to be computed in terms of compensation. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Reference Court nor by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20.06.1985 as well as the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Reference Court nor by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 20.06.1985 as well as the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Land acquisition officer to assess the limited interest which the appellant had in the lands in question and who compute the same in terms of the compensation as the appellant has been deprived of his limited interest in the aforesaid lands. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out positively by the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. Since the matter is being remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer, the amount of court fee deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him under Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.