PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

1. LAA. No.1447 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No.49 of 2005, while LAA. No.1487 of 2007 is directed against the award in LAR. No.45 of 2005. The awards in these two references were passed as common award after conducting joint trial by the Reference Court. The appellant in LAA. No.1147 of 2007 is the wife of the appellant in LAA. No.1487 of 2007. The acquisition was of property in Kuruvilangad Village for the purpose of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. The husband's property was included by the land acquisition officer in category - IV - reclaimed land with PWD road frontage. Wife's property which was lying contiguous to the husband's property was however, included by the land acquisition officer in category - V only reclaimed land with no road frontage. For property included in category - IV, the land acquisition officer awarded `10,639/-per Are relying on the basis document. For the wife's property which was included in category -V he awarded only lesser value of `7447/- per Are. Before the reference court the evidence mainly relied on by the appellants were Ext.A2 sale deed and Ext. C-1 Commissioner's report, apart from the oral evidence. Ext. A2 was a sale deed 10-4-2003 pertaining to 19.25 cents of land. Ext.A2 reflected a land value of `33,767/-per Are. Ext.A2 was discarded by the learned Sub Judge from consideration for the reason that A2 pertains to dry land while the property under acquisition was reclaimed land. The learned Sub Judge on evaluating evidence other than Ext.A2 would re-fix the value of the husband's property in category - IV at `25,000/- per Are. The value of the wife's property which was retained by the learned Sub Judge in category - V itself was proportionately enhanced to `16,000/-per Are. In the appeal preferred by the wife the main ground that she urges is that her property also should have been included in category -IV and given more value as is awarded to her husband's property. There is a common ground that the value re-fixed by the court is inadequate.

2. We have heard the submissions of Mr. P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. Rose Michael, learned Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. Haridas drew our attention to Ext.A2 and C-1. Reading over to us the schedule description in A2 he submitted that A2 property was also reclaimed land. According to him, the finding by the learned Sub Judge that A2 is original dry land is contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Haridas submitted that the appellants being husband and wife were enjoying their properties under acquisition as a common holding. These properties were lying contiguously. The wife's property had access to PWD road through her own husband's property. Hence there was no justification for including these properties in two different category.

3. The learned Govt. Pleader Smt. Rose Michael would oppose the submissions of Mr. Haridas. According to her even though it is stated in Ext. A2 that her property is reclaimed land the reality on the date of A2 was that there were very valuable improvements on A2 property. Therefore for all practical purposes the property was as good as original dry land.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick reappraisal of the evidence. We have considered the impugned award in detail. We cannot approve the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Sub Judge to treat the properties of the husband and wife as included in two different categories. It is in evidence that the properties were lying contiguously and that the husband and wife were enjoying the properties as common holding of the family. Whatever advantages the husband's property was enjoying were available to the wife's property also through her husband's property. Under the social conditions prevailing in the State there is justification for treating these properties of the husband and wife, lying