Abdul Rehim, J.

Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment in LAR.Nos. 118/96 and 254/96 of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kozhikode. In LAA.No.896/2005 arising out of LAR.No.118/96 an extent of 1729 sq.ft. (3.96.cents) of land was acquired for widening of Sub Jail Road in Kozhikode city. Section 3(1) notification was issued on 19.4.1966 and possession of the land was taken over on 2.2.1993. The land acquisition officer fixed value at Rs.375/- per cent, as per award dated 15.9.1980. The reference court, by its judgment dated 18.2.1988, refixed the compensation at Rs.75,000/- per cent. In LAA.No.1094/2005 arising out of LAR.No. 254/96 an extent of 738.84 sq.meters (18.25 cents) of property was acquired for widening of Pavamani Road in Kozhikode City. Section 4(1) notification was published on 25.5.1981 and possession of the land was taken over on 16.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 4095/-per cent through award dated 19.9.1986. The Reference Court, through judgment dated 23.2.1999, relying on the judgment in LAR.No.118/96, refixed land value at Rs.75,000/- per cent. The land in question in that case contained a theater viz. 'Coronation Theater' and by widening of the Road, the porch, portico and shop building situated in the front including the Gate and compound wall were demolished. It has come out in evidence that the theater building was to be remodeled and it has lost considerable space which was used as parking area. Hence the Reference court allowed an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid for remodelling of the theater and a further sum of Rs.15 lakhs for injurious severance along with other statutory benefits.

2. The judgment in LAR.No. 118/96 and 254/96 were challenged in appeal before this court by the State in LAA.No. 1630/98 and 960/99 respectively. This court through a common judgment dated 13.2.2003 set aside the judgments and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. This court while setting aside those judgments found that the Reference Court has not accepted Exts.A1 and A2 documents which were executed after a period of 4 years and 30 years respectively, from the date of notifications in these cases. Even though there was a commission report, the Commissioner was not asked to fix the land value and it is noticed that the commissioner's report was also rejected by the Reference Court. This court found that having rejected Exs.A1 and A2 documents and the commissioner's report, there is no material to assess the value and from the impugned judgments of the Reference Court it is not clear as to on what basis the court had fixed the value. This court noticed that the Government also had not adduced any evidence and not even produced the basis documents. Therefore in the absence of any materials the impugned judgments were set aside and the cases were remanded for fresh adjudication with a direction to the Reference Court to allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence.

3. After remand, commissions were taken out in both the cases and Exts.C2 and C4 are the reports and Ext.C3 is the sketch prepared (Exts.C1 and C2 are commission reports in LAR.No. 118/96 and Ext.C3 and C4 are the sketch and commission report in LAR.No.254/96). After remand AW1 was again examined. The Reference Court considered the evidence and documents in LAR.No. 118/96 in order to have a reconsideration regarding enhancement on the land value. The Claimant contended that the basis land and the acquired property are not similar in nature and they are not similarly situated. According to the claimant, the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer based on the value of the basis land, is highly erroneous and illegal. Even on the date of Section 3(1) notification the centage value of the property in the area in question was Rs.3 lakhs. In orders to substantiate this contention much reliance was placed on Ext.A2 document. (Ext.A2 was seen marked again after the remand as Ext.A17). The State on the other h