Spencer, J.

1. The land acquired in this case was acquired for the purpose of being allotted for building houses but the use to which the land was being put, at the time of acquisition was that of a cocoanut tope. The District Judge has given compensation under two heads, first for the income derivable from the cocoanut trees, which he capitalized at five year purchase and, secondly, he has given compensation for the land at Rs. 1,200 an acre. It is obvious that the same land cannot simultaneously be used as a cocoanut tope and for buildings. P.W. 7, who is the gumasta of the claimant and who speaks to the leasing-of the trees, says that no yield was got from the land. In Secretary of State v. Duma Dal Shaw 190 13 C.W.N. 487 it was observed, that land acquired under this Act should not be valued as a building site and at the same time valued upon the footing of the trees remaining there. The two claims, as pointed out by the learned Judges, are inconsistent. The learned District Judge took the income per tree at not less than Rs. 2, and he observed that 5 years income was not very high in fixing the value per tree. By Ex. E.P.W. 5 let out 150 trees for Rs. 425, a year and th