C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in L.A.R.No.22/2008. The claimant is the appellant and the acquisition and requisitioning authorities are respectively the first and second respondents, in this appeal. An extent of 9.12 Ares (22.53 cents) of property comprised in Survey No.666/10 of Kakkanad village was acquired from the appellant for the purpose of expansion of Info Park. Section 4(1) notification was issued in that regard on 16.1.2006. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, viz., `48,900/- per Are (`19798.57 per cent), the appellant received the compensation under protest and sought for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court on evaluation of the evidence, enhanced the land value to `1,42,288/- per Are (`57606/- per cent). It is still dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the Reference Court and seeking further enhancement that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

2. Before the Reference Court, the appellant-claimant got herself examined as AW1 besides getting examined the Village Officer as AW2 and the Advocate Commissioner who filed a report therein as AW3. Exts.A1 to A4 were got marked. Exts.C1 and C1A are respectively the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the sketch of the acquired property. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exts.R1 to R6 were got marked. Exts.A1 to A4 are the copies of the sale deeds relating certain properties sold out from the nearby area either immediately prior to the section 4(1) notification or thereafter. Ext.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed No.2820/05 of Thrikkakkara Sub Registry dated 13.6.2005. Going by the same, the centage value is `11,47,44/-. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of sale deed No.3581/05 of the same Sub Registry dated 16.8.2005 and going by the same, the centage value is `1,15,000/-. Ext.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed No.526/06 of the same Sub Registry dated 13.2.2006 wherein the land value per cent is shown as `1.87 lakhs. Ext.A4 dated 24.3.2007 is the certified copy of sale deed No.1406/07 of same Sub Registry relating the sale of a property subsequent to the 4(1) notification whereby an extent of 39.60 Ares of properties comprised in Survey No.118 of Thrikkakkara village was sold for an amount of `4.45 crores, i.e., approximately, `4.5 lakhs per cent. The claimant attempted to establish that there is steady increase in the land value in that area by producing Exts.A1 to A4. That apart, through Ext.C1 report, the appellant attempted to establish the commercial importance of the locality. Before the Reference Court, I.A.No.636/2010 was filed with the prayer to look into the judgment in LAR No.131/2008. The acquired property in LAR No.131/2008 also belonged to the appellant-claimant and it is lying just opposite to the property involved in this case and it was produced to drive home the point that the nature of the properties involved in LAR No.131/2008 and in the case on hand, is the same. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the Reference Court though relied on Ext.A2 and had also taken into account the fact that the property involved in LAR No.131/2008 is also a property acquired from the appellant himself and lying near to the property involved in the case on hand, declined to grant enhancement of land value at par with the rate of enhancement made in LAR No. 131/2008 taking note of the land value in Ext.A2. The Reference Court found that the property involved in the case on hand is a reclaimed land unlike the property involved in Ext.A2 and therefore, it could not fetch the same land value as has been given in the case of property involved in Ext.A2. Thereupon Reference Court effected deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2 document while fixing the land value of the property involved in the case on hand. The Refer