JUDGMENT : K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. LAA No. 827/06 was filed by the requisitioning authority against the award passed by the Third Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam, in LAR No. 3/02 and LAA No. 546/06 was filed by the claimants in the same case. LAA No. 657/06 was filed by the requisitioning authority in LAR No. 5/02 while LAA No. 15/07 was filed by the claimant in the same case. LAA No. 695/06 was filed by the requisitioning authority against LAR No. 42/02 while LAA No. 919/06 was filed by the claimants in the same case. LAA No. 808/06 was filed by the requisitioning authority in LAR No. 4/02 while LAA No. 1397/06 was filed by the claimants in the same case. LAA No. 828/06 was filed by the requisitioning authority against LAR No. 43/02 while LAA No. 857/06 was filed by the claimants in the above case. Since these cases were tried and disposed of by a common judgment by the reference court, we are also disposing of the same by a common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring to the status of parties as claimants and requisitioning authority, in the appeal. The properties belonging to the claimants in the above cases were acquired for the purpose of the requisitioning authority along with other properties, as per a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act dated 05.03.1990. The entire properties acquired were classified into categories 'A' to 'F' Category A properties were dry lands, having direct frontage of NH 47 and for the said property, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded land value @ Rs. 2,10,161/- per are. Category B lands were reclaimed lands with road frontage and access to river through reclaimed portions of the river. For these lands, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs. 85,543/- per are. Category C properties were reclaimed wet lands having river frontage and for this category, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value @ Rs. 83,866/- per are. Category D properties were wet lands with thodu and chira, having road frontage and for these properties, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed land value @ Rs. 79,585/- per are. E category lands were wet lands with thodu and chira, having access to river through the reclaimed portion of the river for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs. 71,627/- per are. 79,585/- per are. E category lands were wet lands with thodu and chira, having access to river through the reclaimed portion of the river for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs. 71,627/- per are. Category F lands were lying as private road for own usage and for this, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed land value @ Rs. 100/- per are. The properties in L.A.R. No. 3/02, 5/02 and 42/02 were included in D category, while the property in L.A.R. No. 4/02 and 43/02 were included in E category. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed objections and at the request of the claimants, the cases were referred to the Third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam for reconsideration of the land value u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. According to the claimants, in all these cases, the categorisation made as D and E is unscientific and they are lying as contiguous plots. There is no difference between these two properties and they were enjoyed as compact plots by the sisters, mother and brothers-in-law and as such, the categorisation made is not proper or scientific. Further, the land value fixed is also not proper and they claimed land value @ Rs. 1.5 lakhs per are. 3. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Officer and the requisitioning authority, who were later impleaded as additional parties in the L.A.Rs., submitted that the categorisation made was scientific and proper and E category properties are chira and wet lands without any road access, whereas D category properties are having road access arid access to the river through the reclaimed portion of land, consequent to which they were correctly classified into separate categories and the amount awarded is just and proper. 4. AW 1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A20 and C1 to C3 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sub Judge relied on Ext. 4. AW 1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A20 and C1 to C3 were marked on the side of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sub Judge relied on Ext. A18 agreement, alleged to have been entered into among the claimants themselves, in respect of the acquired properties, providing a pathway from the private road to properties shown as E category and found that the mahazar prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of E category properties is not in tune with the materials available on record, because of which, the observation of the Land Acquisition Officer that there is no passage to connect E category properties is not correct. On that basis, the Sub Court held that classification of that portion as a separate category is not proper and considered E category also as D category and enhanced the land value to Rs. 1,21,000/- per are and granted enhanced compensation on that basis. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed their appeals, while aggrieved by the change of categorisation and also the land value fixed, the Requisitioning Authority has filed their appeals. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the requisitioning authority argued that the Sub Judge was not justified in changing the category and converting category E into Category D taking both lands as the same category and fixing the same land value for both the properties. Further, they contend that the Sub Judge had wrongly relied on Ext. A18 document, which is not admissible in evidence. In fact, though Ext. A18 has been relied on for the purpose of proving the fact that there was a way provided from the private road to E category property, there was no such road found when the Commissioner inspected the property. Further, Ext. A18 was not referred to in the subsequent documents executed between the parties as well. No mention was made about Ext. A18 in the statement filed by the claimants as well. The first time Ext. A18 had been produced was along with the proof affidavit of AW 1 and it can be seen from the evidence of AW 1 that it was a fabricated document created later for the purpose of the case. No mention was made about Ext. A18 in the statement filed by the claimants as well. The first time Ext. A18 had been produced was along with the proof affidavit of AW 1 and it can be seen from the evidence of AW 1 that it was a fabricated document created later for the purpose of the case. So, the lower court was not justified in changing the category and fixing the same land value for the lands involved in all these cases. Further, there is no justification for the reference court for enhancing the land value as well. The lower court has failed to note the fact that these properties were not having any potential value when compared to category A, B and C properties and enhancement should not have been made merely because enhancement was made for other categories of lands. So, according to him, the amount awarded is also excessive. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve Ext. A18 and it was proved through AW 1. That will go to show that a private pathway was provided through the extremity of the property connecting the private road with the alleged E category property. In fact, there was no such E category property and the properties categorised as D and E were lying contiguously as a compact plot enjoyed by the daughters and sons-in-law of AW 1 and his wife Anniyamma Varghese and as such, the potentialities of the D category property were also available to E category property. He relied on the decision reported in Lillykutty Vs. State of Kerala, , wherein it has been held that the properties of husband and wife lying together and contiguously in the same condition, if enjoyed as common holding of a family, they should be included in the same category. He also argued that even if the proportionate deduction made by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the land value of each category of property is taken, then also, the amount awarded for their properties are below the market value. Further, for the properties included in categories A, B and C, the enhancement was awarded @ 75.35% for B category and 63.97% for C category and if such a yardstick is taken, the value fixed by the reference court for this property is far less. Further, for the properties included in categories A, B and C, the enhancement was awarded @ 75.35% for B category and 63.97% for C category and if such a yardstick is taken, the value fixed by the reference court for this property is far less. The lower court was not justified in discarding the documents produced by the claimants to prove the land value. The reference court also did not properly consider the Commissioner's report which will prove the potential value of the properties and according to him, the categorisation made by the Sub Court treating them as the same category of property is proper, but the amount awarded is far less than the actual market value that could have been fetched for these properties at the relevant time. So, he prayed for enhancement of the amount. 9. Before going into the facts of the case, we feel that it will be apposite to consider the precedents on the aspect of fixing the market value under the Land Acquisition Act. 10. In the decision reported in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy, (2010) 15 SCC 412, it has been held that in a case where different lands with different survey numbers belong to different owners and having different locations, it cannot be considered as a compact plot. In such cases, belting system for determining the compensation would be appropriate. In the same decision, it has been held that merely because adjoining lands are developing, it does not mean that the acquired land which is admittedly was agricultural land, no development was required and no deduction need be granted. In the same decision, it has been held that in the case of non-development land necessary deduction will have to be made for development costs and land having frontage on highway would have better value than lands further away from highway. So, corresponding decrease in value has to be made for those lands and normally, 33% has to be deducted for development costs in case of non-developed lands for treating it as comparable lands. 11. So, corresponding decrease in value has to be made for those lands and normally, 33% has to be deducted for development costs in case of non-developed lands for treating it as comparable lands. 11. In the decision reported in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and others, (2010) 15 SCC 60, it has been held that if the documents relating to post acquisition period if they are not comparable with the acquired land, the same cannot be taken as a basis for fixing the land value. Further, necessary reduction will have to be made considering the development charges to be incurred for developing the land and also the proximity of business establishments, location of the land etc. when compared to the acquired land with those lands which were in better position than the acquired land and necessary deduction will have to be made for fixing the market value of land in such cases. The same view has been reiterated in the decisions reported in Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, Goa Housing Board v. Pandurang Sawant, (2010) 15 SCC 276, Spl. L.A.O. City Improvement Trust Board Vs. S.G. Channabasavana Gowda and Another etc., National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Jagga Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Another, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, R. Sargapani v. Special Tahsildar. Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, (2011) 14 SCC 177 : 2011 ICO 1297, Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others, . Further, in the same decisions, it has been held that if market value of the Land is taken on the basis of a document, which is prior in point of time of the date of acquisition, then, reasonable escalation of price must be provided from the market value fixed in that document and normally, 10 to 15% enhancement can be made from the market value per year for fixing the land value as on the date of acquisition. It is also clear from the above decisions that the deduction for development charges can be varied from 33% to 70%, considering the nature of land, amount required for development, its location and distance from the road etc., but in no case, it should exceed 75%. 12. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decisions, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants that no categorisation can be made for fixing the land value for different types of properties. Further, the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Lillikutty's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case because, the evidence will go to show that the properties were not of similar nature and they were in different categories and the properties were, though belonging to the sisters and the brothers-in-law were obtained by different documents, delineated separately and enjoyed as separate plots. So, the principle that the properties of husband and wife lying together contiguously in the same condition and enjoyed as common holding of a family, should be included in the same category, cannot be applied to the case on hand. So, the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants that there is no necessity to make categorisation of the lands and they should be included in the same category, cannot be accepted. The case on hand has to be considered in accordance with the principles laid down in the above decisions and also on the basis of evidence adduced by parties. 13. They are admitted facts that the land belonging to the claimants were acquired for the purpose of the requisitioning authority, those properties were classified into different categories and the present disputed properties were categorised as categories D and E. It is also seen from the records that the properties were purchased in the joint names of the wife of AW 1 and his daughters and subsequently, by virtue of certain documents, some portions were given to some of the daughters and sons-in-law. The claimants rely on Exts. A19 and A20 documents to prove that the land value of those properties was more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in that area and according to them, since the documents were executed between the relatives, lesser value was shown as Rs. 1,01,000/- per cent. The claimants rely on Exts. A19 and A20 documents to prove that the land value of those properties was more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in that area and according to them, since the documents were executed between the relatives, lesser value was shown as Rs. 1,01,000/- per cent. But, it was admitted by AW 1 that he was aware of the proposal for acquiring these lands for the requisitioning authority that a Will was executed earlier and since they were aware of the fact that there is a possibility of acquisition and the execution of will not serve the purpose, they executed Exts. A19 and A20. So, the lower court was perfectly justified in not relying on Exts. A19 and A20 for assessing the market value of the property as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. Further, Exts. B1 and B2 will go to show that some months prior to the execution of Exts. A19 and A20, they had executed documents, showing the value of the properties as Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per cent. So, that also will give an indication that AW 1 being an advocate, anticipated the proposed acquisition and created Exts. A19 and A20 documents, showing higher land value, so as to claim land value at least at the rate mentioned in those documents in the event of acquisition of those properties. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the court below that Exts. A19 and A20 cannot be relied on for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land. 14. The learned Sub Judge had relied on Ext. A18 document executed between the claimants as a consent deed, alleged to have been executed on 4.3.1982, providing a pathway having "10 and 5 links" width to reach the property shown as E category property involved in LAR Nos. 4/02 and 43/02 from the private road shown by the Commissioner in Ext. C3 report so as to come to a conclusion that there was a way provided and the observation made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the mahazar that there is no way to reach E category properties from the road is not correct and as such, there is no necessity to classify that portion of the land as E category. C3 report so as to come to a conclusion that there was a way provided and the observation made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the mahazar that there is no way to reach E category properties from the road is not correct and as such, there is no necessity to classify that portion of the land as E category. Therefore, the Sub Judge included the same in D category land for the purpose of assessing the land value. But, it may be mentioned here that this document was executed in a stamp paper purchased in the name of AW 1 on 24.09.1976, although he did not have any right in the property at that time. Normally, a document will be executed in stamp paper purchased in the name of the parties, who are going to derive the benefit from or who is to execute the document and not on stamp paper purchased in the name of a third person. Further, a reading of Ext. A18 document will go to show that there is no specific pathway delineated and provided and the description of the pathway is also vague. Though this document was alleged to have been executed in the year 1982, there was no such way found by the Land Acquisition Officer, when he prepared the mahazar and also by the commissioner, who inspected the property in the year 2003. Further, the existence of such a way was not mentioned in any of the claim statements filed by the claimants either before the court or before the Land Acquisition Officer. There is nothing mentioned about the existence of Ext. A18 in any of the documents executed between the parties subsequently as well. The same was produced for the first time before court by AW 1, who is an advocate by profession along with his proof affidavit. This fact was admitted by him when he was examined as AW 1 as well. So, the observation of the learned sub Judge that Ext. A18 can be relied upon to prove the right claimed as per the document so as to give the benefit of the same to the parties for changing the category is unsustainable in law. Ext. This fact was admitted by him when he was examined as AW 1 as well. So, the observation of the learned sub Judge that Ext. A18 can be relied upon to prove the right claimed as per the document so as to give the benefit of the same to the parties for changing the category is unsustainable in law. Ext. A18 cannot be relied on for any purpose as it is clear from the evidence that it is a concocted document clandestinely prepared, using the professional skill of AW 1 for the purpose of using the same in evidence to prove the access to E category properties from the road, which was non-existent, claim benefit out of the same. So, the finding of the court below that on the basis of Ext. A18, the observation made in the mahazar that category E schedule properties do not have any way connecting from the road is not correct and as such, the categorisation made is not proper and treating the same as D schedule property is unsustainable in law. On the basis of the materials available on record as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the categorisation made by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper and the same has to be restored for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification and we do so. 15. Though the claimants claimed to have been in possession of category A and C properties shown in the sketch prepared by the commissioner along with Ext. C3 and claimed right over the same, in the absence of evidence adduced on the side of the claimants to prove title over the same and also on the basis of the admission of AW 1 regarding this aspect, the learned sub Judge was perfectly justified in not treating those portions of the properties as belonging to the claimants and it was rightly held that the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation for the injurious affection for those portions, rightly declining to grant that relief. It is true that as per the order in LAA No. 124/05, this court had re-fixed the value of B category properties @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per are and C category @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per are. It is true that as per the order in LAA No. 124/05, this court had re-fixed the value of B category properties @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per are and C category @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per are. It is an admitted fact that B category properties were reclaimed lands with road frontage, having access to the river portion through the reclaimed portion of the river and the lower court relied on Ext. A7 certified copy of the judgment in LAR No. 91/01 of the same Court, whereby the reference court had fixed the land value @ Rs. 1,26,000/- per are for the said land. The reference court had only noted that the difference between B and D category properties is that D category properties are lying as chira and thodu. So, for that purpose, 4% was deducted and the land value was fixed @ Rs. 1,21,000/-. But, it may be mentioned here that B category property is fully reclaimed land with road frontage and also having access to the river through the reclaimed portion. But, it was admitted by AW 1 that the properties which are the subject matter of these cases are not reclaimed lands and the reference court also came to the conclusion, on the basis of evidence that at the time of preparing the mahazar by the Land Acquisition Officer, the properties were lying as chira and thodu. It was also admitted by AW 1 and also evident from the Commissioner's report, Ext. C3, that even at the time when the Commissioner inspected the property, 1/4th portion of the land was still lying as chira and thodu. So, under such circumstances, it cannot be treated at par with or comparable with either B and C category property for the purpose of assessing the market value of the property. But, considering the fact that substantial enhancement has been granted for all categories of properties by the reference court and also by this Court, we feel that considerable enhancement has to be given for these categories of land as well, on the basis of the enhancement given to other categories of land. But, considering the fact that substantial enhancement has been granted for all categories of properties by the reference court and also by this Court, we feel that considerable enhancement has to be given for these categories of land as well, on the basis of the enhancement given to other categories of land. Considering the fact that these properties are lying as chira and thodu and it requires huge amount towards development costs to make it a commercial plot and also considering the fact that some of the properties are having large extents, we feel that granting 40% enhancements from the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of D category property and 35% enhancement in respect of E category property from the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for E category properties will be just and proper and that will meet the ends of justice. So, we refix the land value of D and E category properties by providing 40% and 35% enhancement from the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereby, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 1,11,419/- per are for D category properties and Rs. 96,696/- for E category properties and we refix the land value of the properties as such. So, the claimants are entitled to land value @ Rs. 1,11,419/- for D category properties involved in LAR Nos. 3/02, 5/02 and 42/02 and @ Rs. 96,696/- per are in respect of E category properties involved in LAR Nos. 4/02 and 43/02 only as against Rs. 1,21,000/- fixed by the lower court. We re-fix the land value as mentioned above. Needless to say, the claimants are entitled to get all statutory benefits for the property on the enhanced land value also. In view of our above findings, the appeals filed by the claimants namely LAA Nos. 546/06, 15/07, 919/06, 1397/08 and 857/06 are dismissed and LAA Nos. 657/06, 695/06, 808/06, 827/06 and 828/06 are allowed in part.