Judgment : Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. Claimant is the appellant. His land together with portion of a building was acquired for the purpose of widening of the M.C.Road. The property was in Ettumanoor village and was situated adjacent to the Mahadeva Temple at Ettumanoor. There were other cases also and the Land Acquisition Officer classified the properties acquired for the same purpose into categories-A, B &C . The appellant's property included in category B and awarded the value at the rate of Rs.1,27,778/-per Are. Even though several documents were produced by the appellant to support the appellant's claim that the land value at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Are (Rs.15 lakhs per cent), the learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to place reliance on any of the documents produced by the appellant. Finally relying on the basis document themselves, the learned Subordinate Judge would refix the land value at Rs.1,53,334/-per Are. Thus awarding to the appellant 20% more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the building portion which existed on the property under acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1,28,019/-. Before the Reference Court, the appellant took out a commission who valued the building at Rs.6,53,600/-. Apart from the building value, the appellant had a further claim that for strengthening the portions of his building not under acquisition should be awarded substantial amounts - Rs.4,70,000/-. He also claimed that towards charges for demolition of the acquired building, he should be awarded Rs.1,4,5,000/-. Under the impugned award, the learned Subordinate Judge would accept the recommendations of the Commissioner regarding the value of the building to a substantial extent and the appellant was awarded enhanced compensation fixing the value of building as Rs.60,000/-. Towards charges for strengthening the unacquired building, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded Rs.1,80,000/-(this amount is awarded obviously under clause fourthly of Section 23 towards injurious affection). No compensation was awarded for demolition of the acquired building for the reason that the demolition and removal of the acquired building is the worry of the Requisitioning Authority and the Government. 2. In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge under various grounds. Mr.Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the appellant addressed submissions based on all grounds. 2. In this appeal, various grounds are raised challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge under various grounds. Mr.Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the appellant addressed submissions based on all grounds. According to Mr.Sathish Ninan,the award of the learned Subordinate Judge in terms of land value, building value, demolition charges and the expenditure for strengthening the unacquired building all are inadequate. 3. Shri C.R.Shyam Kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader per contra submitted that the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the adequacy of the compensation awarded. The learned Subordinate Judge was very liberal when he came to award enhanced compensation. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar and we have made a survey of the evidence on the basis of the copies of the depositions and documents which were placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. We shall first deal with the question of the correct market value to be awarded to the appellant's property. We are not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants' property should have been included in category A. According to us, there was justification for the Land Acquisition Officer in categorizing the properties under acquisition into more than one category. At the same time, we feel that the awarding officer did not maintain the correct ratio between values of the properties included by him in the different categories. We are in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that none of the documents produced by the appellant was fully relevant for determining the correct market value of the properties under acquisition. The learned Subordinate Jude has done guess work based on the basis documents and the other evidence available on record such as the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the recommendations of the Advocate Commissioner. We are of the view that on re-appreciation of the evidence and on a better assessment, the market value of the land under acquisition in this case can be reasonably fixed at Rs.1,85,278.10 which we round off to Rs.1,85,300/-per Are, which comes roughly to 45% more than the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant. We are of the view that on re-appreciation of the evidence and on a better assessment, the market value of the land under acquisition in this case can be reasonably fixed at Rs.1,85,278.10 which we round off to Rs.1,85,300/-per Are, which comes roughly to 45% more than the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant. Even though Mr.Sathish Ninan was very persuasive in his submissions based on the other claims of the appellant, having scanned the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded adequate compensation to the appellant under all other allowable heads. We are in complete agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that the demolition charges cannot be awarded to the appellant as it is the obligation of the Government to demolish the building which existed on the acquired property. Coming to the additional value for the building and charges necessary for strengthening the unacquired portion of the building (compensation towards injurious affection of the unacquired portion), we find that the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded reasonable compensation. 5. This appeal is allowed only to the extent of refixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.1,85,300/- per Are. The appellant will be entitled to all statutory benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants will be entitled for the proportionate costs also. Decree copy will be issued to the appellant only after ensuring that the full court fee is paid in the memorandum of appeal.