Abdul Gafoor, J.

First among these two appeals is by the State impugning the enhancement of the land value and the latter one is by the claimant seeking further enhancement for the land acquired from him.

2. The land was acquired for the purpose of railways based on a notification issued on 14.2.1989. In the reference application, mainly three disputes were raised by the claimant. One is regarding the extent of the land. According to him, the land measured 22 cents equal to 8.94 Ares, whereas according to the Collector, it was only 18 cents equivalent to 7.29 Ares based on the title deed. According to the claimant, he was entitled to get compensation for the land taken from his possession from within the compound walls on all the four sides. It was his own residential property. The second among the claims raised was with regard to the land value. According to him, he was entitled to Rs.15,000/- per cent equal to Rs.37,065/- per Are based on the market value available in the locality in and around the date of notification. The Collector fixed the land value only at Rs.7,135/= per Are. He had a further case that the structures including the residential building in the land acquired ought to have been valued at Rs.10 lakhs. Rs.2,29,477/= alone was fixed as the value for the structures including the residential building. The Reference Court enhanced the former to Rs.22,500/= per Are and the latter to Rs.4,80,049/- and rejected the contention of the claimant with regard to the dispute in the area acquired the accepted the area mentioned by the Collector in his award. Compensation was accordingly worked out. This is impugned in these appeals by either side.

3. It is contended by the Government Pleader assailing enhancement that the court below had not really accepted Ext.A1 sale deed dated 17.10.1984. In the absence of Ext.A1 there was no other evidence with regard to the land value. Therefore, the court below ought to have accepted the fixation of land value by the Collector at Rs.7,135/- per Are. Equally so, is the valuation for the building. He submits that when the claimant did not have title for the property in excess of 18 cents, he is not entitled to get land value for any area in excess of the one mentioned in his title deed. So he is entitled to get compensation for 18 cents only.

4. Claiming further value for the land and building, it is submitted by the claimant that the acquired property is within the heart of the city having access to important institutions as deposed to by AW.1, the claimant and AW.2 an independent witness. He further submits that Ext.A1 is a sale deed dated 17.10.1984 reflecting a land value in that transaction at Rs.23,475/- per Are. Even that much is not given by the court below. The court below also had not taken note of more than 4 years difference between the dates of Ext.A1 and the date of Section 4(1) notification in this case. Had it been taken note of based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar and another (2004 (2) SCC 283), the valuation would have been more than what the claimant had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that he had taken the services of an expert to prove the valuation of the building and other structures in the land acquired. Ext.C3 is the report prepared by a Retired Chief Engineer. He had given the valuation for the building after deducting depreciation, at Rs.4,80,049/-. True, the court below has accepted it in its entirety, but there are two important defects in the said report. (1) he had deducted 1.5% per annum towards depreciation. It ought to have been only by 5/6%. In this regard the decisions reported in Mytheen Kunju Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State (1954 KLT 783) and Bhavani Ramalakshmy v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLJ 627) are relied on. The court below did not consider this aspect. It is further submitted that the rate for valuation adopted by the Chief Engineer