C. N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant and respondents to seek remedy in respect of the matter before the Civil Court. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are the following. Appellant 23 sq. metres of land with a small building thereon situated on the road side in Trivandrum was acquired for widening the road. The total compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the small extent of land and building was Rs.2,59,739/-. The case of the Land Acquisition Officer is that even though notice was issued for taking over advance possession and compensation was also fixed, possession was in fact not taken over. However, when possession was taken, the small building situated in the land was seen demolished. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer by a subsequent order reduced the compensation originally fixed and payable to the appellant from Rs.2,59,739/- to Rs.1,34,332/-. It is against the reduction of compensation the appellant filed the Writ Petition contending that the Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to do so. The case of the Land Acquisition Officer is that building would have been demolished and taken away by the appellant and so much so, appellant is not entitled to compensation for the building and the eligibility for compensation for her is only for the land. The appellant had specifically denied having demolished or taken away the building materials and on this ground appellant opposed reduction in the compensation amount. After hearing both sides, learned Single Judge felt that the question to be decided is a pure civil dispute as to who has in fact demolished and taken away the building materials, which will certainly involve a finding as to whether physical possession was really taken by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of notice for taking over advance possession.

3. After hearing both sides we feel the relief granted by the learned Single Judge is neither justified nor desirable or practical because appellant, an old lady in her 70s, if sent to the Civil Court for settling this issue, probably will have to spent rest of her life in litigation. Besides this, we find one more reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because the order impugned in the WP(C) i.e. reduction of compensation, is not sustainable for the reasons which are discussed hereunder.

4. Admittedly the land involved is a small extent of 23 sq. metres and the building also would have been a very small building and the same is evident from the fact that the total compensation fixed for the land and building was only Rs.2,59,739/-. When land is acquired with building, the building necessarily has to be valued to compensate the building owner for the acquisition of the building. However, the beneficiary in land acquisition will not get corresponding benefit in value for the acquired building when the building acquired is only to be demolished. Admittedly, acquisition is for construction of the road and after acquisition building should be demolished for road widening and respondents do not deny this position. From the reduction granted it is clear that the value of building fixed was Rs.1,25,407/-. The question to be considered is whether the value of the building awarded as cost to the building owner is a gain for the land acquisition authority when the building is taken over for demolition. No one can dispute that when a building is demolished, the value that could be recovered is only by sale of the materials obtained after demolition which is concrete rubble, broken bricks and probably the windows and doors. Compared to the value of the building assessed for granting compensation, the price that could be obtained on sale of the demolished building materials will be insignificant. In fact, demolition cost itself has