P.R. Raman, J.

This Land Acquisition Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1996 in L.A.R. No. 363 of 1994 of the III Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. The appellant is the claimant in the Land Acquisition Reference case. An extent of 2.225 cents of land along with a 4 storied building standing thereon was acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway 47. The relevant notification was published in the Gazette dated 18.10.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the land value at the rate of Rs. 26,895/- per cent that is to say Rs. 66,430/- per Are. The building was valued at Rs. 6,49,248/- as against the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs for both building and land together. Not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought for reference before the court below for enhancement of the compensation.

2. Before the reference court the claimant limited his claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per, cent as regards the land value and Rs. 14,61,312/- towards the building.

3. The court below after considering the entire evidence in the matter awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000/-per cent towards land value. As a matter of fact, the land value was fixed by the court below relying on Ext. A2 as per which enhancement was given by the court below in a similar case.

4. Though the appellant contends that the land value fixed by the court below should be further enhanced, in the absence of any evidence to show that the land value fixed by the court below is too low or does not represent the market value, we are not satisfied with this contention. We find from the records and evidence in the case that the land value fixed by the court below is just and proper and represent the market value. Accordingly, we confirm the judgment and decree as regards the land value fixed in this case.

5. The next claim relates to the value of the building. The appellant relying on Ext. Al Commission report and Ext. A2 valuation report submitted by the Engineer, submits that the building should have been valued as fixed by the Commissioner, at Rs. 14,61,312/-. But the court below has not accepted .the Commissioner's report. According to the court below, the valuation by the Engineer without inspecting the municipal records to determine the age of the building and without deducting the relevant depreciation cannot be accepted as representing the correct market value. Hence, according to the court below, the valuation of AW.2 Engineer, which is Ext. A1(a) is not much dependable for awarding enhanced compensation for the structures. But however, since the awarding officer determined the compensation based on PWD rate and considering the fact that it is very .difficult to construct structures at PWD rates, 50% enhancement over the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was given by the court below. In other words, the court below gave a further enhancement for Rs. 3,24,624/-over and above the value fixed by the awarding officer.

6. The valuation of the Engineer (AW.2) was rejected by the court below on the sole ground that he determined the age of the building without inspecting the municipal records and further that he did not deduct any depreciation for the building. Though the valuation by the Engineer need not be the sole basis that certainly is an item of evidence and the court below should have assessed the market value of the building with or without any modification of the value shown in the report of the Engineer rather than rejecting the report in toto. Even if the court below thought that any depreciation is to be allowed after determining the age of the building it was open to the court below to do so taking note of the valuation done by the Engineer as the basis if there was no other evidence available to assess the value of the building. Hence we are of the opinion that the rejection of the valuation of the building made by a qualified Engineer in toto may not be justifiable for the reasons