JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. 1. These batch of cases concern acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a Commercial Tax Check Post Complex at Bangara-Manjeshwar Village. The acquisition was made pursuant to two notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). A total extent of 1.8452 hectares was notified as per Section 4(1) notification dated 29/4/2009 and 1.9312 hectares was notified for acquisition on 1/11/2009. The Land Acquisition Officer having considered seven documents placed reliance upon document No.3963/2006 of SRO, Manjeshwar to fix the land value in the case. Accordingly, the land value was fixed at Rs. 64,220/- per Are for properties covered by Section 4(1) notification dated 29/4/2009 and Rs. 49,400/- per Are for properties covered by Section 4(1) notification dated 1/11/2009. 2. Claimants objected to the above award and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the LA Act. 3. Before the Sub Court, separate evidence was adduced in different cases. Initially, judgment was delivered by the Reference Court in a few of the cases. This Court having considered the matter remitted the same to the Reference Court as per judgment in LAA No.700/2011. Similar orders were passed in LAA Nos. 696/2011, 723/13, 747/13, 782/13, 62/14, 474/14 and 496/14. The case was thereafter heard and decided. LAR Nos. 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62 and 65/2010 were decided by a common judgment dated 23/12/2011 and the other cases were decided separately. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the appeals arise out of cases with reference to acquisition of land in the same locality, for a common purpose and there is hardly five months difference in the date of notifications, they are heard and decided together. Following table details out the compensation awarded in each of the cases which are under consideration. Sl. Following table details out the compensation awarded in each of the cases which are under consideration. Sl. No. LAA No. LAR No. Extent in Ares Award by LAO - per Are Land value refixed by Sub Court - per Are 1 466/12 47/2010 2.83 64,220/- 5,68,330/- 2 672/12 54/2010 30.35 “ “ 3 803/12 56/2010 10.12 “ “ 4 833/12 48/2010 2.83 “ “ 5 22/13 65/2010 3.59 “ “ 6 70/13 62/2010 43.71 “ “ 7 107/13 50/2010 8.10 “ 5,68,100/- 8 180/13 57/2010 13.76 “ “ 9 261/13 11/2011 24.68 “ “ 10 304/13 63/2010 57.81 49,400/- 4,17,430/- 11 341/13 67/2010 38.44 64,220/- 5,18,700 /- 12 723/13 51/2010 6.68 49,400/- 5,43,400/- 13 735/13 64/2010 6.08 49,400/- 5,68,100/- 14 742/13 55/2010 5.26 64,220/- 5,68,100/- 15 747/13 52/2010 23.88 49,400/- 5,43,400/- 16 782/13 66/2010 4.86 49,400/- 4,74,240/- 17 62/14 49/2010 12.14 49,400/- 4,74,240/- 18 474/14 53/2010 22.66 64,220/- 5,13,760/- 5. First we shall consider the batch of cases decided by a common judgment in LAR No.47/2010 and connected cases. For easy reference, the documents relied upon in LAR No.47/2010 are referred to unless otherwise stated. In the case on hand, the Reference Court had adopted the comparable sale method and the comparison was between document No.734/2008 of SRO Manjeswar (Ext.A1), document No.735/2008 of SRO Manjeswar (Ext.A2) and the basic document No.3963/2006 (Ext.R4). 6. There cannot be any dispute that when comparable sale method is adopted, the Court will have to assess the value of land in the nearby locality, based on comparable instances of sale. If the document relied upon reflects a genuine transaction of sale, between a willing buyer and a willing purchaser, the Court can easily place reliance upon the said document and arrive at the market value of land. 7. The nearness of the comparable sale deeds to the acquired land is an important factor to be considered while comparing the sale instances with that of the acquired property. In an instance where a sale deed is available within the acquired property and near in time, the value shown in the said document will be a safe guide to fix the land value in such cases. 8. In LAR Nos.47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62 and 65/2010, evidence is common. Claimants relied upon Exts. A1 to A6 and examined AW1, Respondents produced Exts. 8. In LAR Nos.47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 57, 62 and 65/2010, evidence is common. Claimants relied upon Exts. A1 to A6 and examined AW1, Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R17, which are the awards, mahazar, valuation statement and the basic document. The C claimant in LAR No.62/10 was examined as AW1, to prove Exts.A1 and A2. From Exts.A1 and A2, it is borne out that the claimants in LAR No.62/2010, i.e., Mr. Devadas Kumar, M.C. Hussain and Mohammed Haneef were holding an extent of 49.37 Ares of land out of which they sold two items of property having an extent of 2.83 Ares each on either side of their property with road frontage to National Highway (for short 'N.H.') at a rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 4,94,200/- per Are. Those documents were executed on 7/2/2008. As per Ext.R4, 40 cents of land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs, which would come to Rs. 20,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 49,420/- per Are. 9. The Advocate Commissioner who had prepared Ext.X1 report, on comparing the land under acquisition and Ext.R4, basic document land observed that it is not comparable. The Advocate Commissioner has reported that the property in LAR Nos.47, 48, 54, 62 and 65 of 2010 are situated by the side of N.H. and the other properties are situated adjoining the said plots. The report of the Advocate Commissioner was accepted by the Reference Court. 10. The Reference Court relied upon Exts.A1 and A2 for the purpose of fixing the land value in the case and 15% was added as escalation for the time gap between the date of Exts.A1, A2 and the date of notification. Accordingly, the value was fixed at Rs. 2,30,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 5.68,330/- per Are. 11. In LAR No.49 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Exts. A1 and A2 the sale deed Nos. 734/2008 and 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R3. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. The court below relied upon Exts. A1 and A2 and having found that the acquired property is situated 50 meters away from N.H., deducted 20% from the value shown in Exts. A1 and A2 the sale deed Nos. 734/2008 and 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R3. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. The court below relied upon Exts. A1 and A2 and having found that the acquired property is situated 50 meters away from N.H., deducted 20% from the value shown in Exts. A1 and A2, and thereafter granted 10% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 1,92,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs.4,74,240/- per Are. 12. In LAR No.50 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed No. 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R3. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and having found that the acquired property is similar to the said property, granted 15% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,30,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,68,100/- per Are. Court below rejected the basic document as not comparable, based on the commission report. 13. In LAR No. 51 of 2010, claimant was examined as AW1. The claimant relied upon Exts.A1 and A2 sale deed Nos. 734/2008 and 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R3. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. The court below relied upon Exts. A1 and A2 and granted 10% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,20,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,43,400/- per Are. 14. In LAR No.52 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed No. 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R3. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and having found that the acquired property is similar to the said property, granted 10% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,20,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and having found that the acquired property is similar to the said property, granted 10% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,20,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,43,400/- per Are. 15. LAR Nos. 53 of 2010 and 61/2010 were decided by a common judgment. AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext. A1 sale deed No. 734/2008 and Ext.A2 judgment in LAR No.51/2010. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R12. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and having found that the acquired properties were immediately on the eastern side of the N.H., deducted 20% and granted 15% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,08,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,13,760/- per Are. 16. In LAR No. 63 of 2010, claimant was examined as AW1. The claimant relied upon Exts.A1 and A2, sale deed Nos. 734/2008 and 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R4. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. Ext. X1 is the commission report and Ext.X2 is the plan. The Court below relied upon Exts.A1 and A2 and having found that the acquired property is situated 150 meters away from N.H. and by the side of a Panchayat Road, deducted 35% from the value shown in Exts. A1 and A2, and thereafter granted 15% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 1,69,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 4,17,430/- per Are. 17. In LAR No.64 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext.A3 sale deed No. 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R4. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. 1,69,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 4,17,430/- per Are. 17. In LAR No.64 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext.A3 sale deed No. 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts. R1 to R4. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No.3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Ext.A3 and having found that the acquired property is similar to the said property, granted 15% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,30,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,68,100/- per Are. Court below rejected the basic document as not comparable, based on the commission report. 18. In LAR No.66 of 2010, AW1 was examined and the claimant relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed No. 735/2008. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R5. Ext.R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. The Court below relied upon Ext.A1 and having found that the acquired property is 50 meters away from the eastern boundary of the N.H., deducted 20% and granted 10% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 1,60,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 4,74,240/- per Are. 19. In LAR No. 67 of 2010, two claimants were examined as AW1 and AW2.The claimants relied upon Exts.A1 to A4. Exts.A1 and A2 are sale deed Nos. 734/2008 and 735/2008. Exts.A3 and A4 are the judgment and decree in LAR No.52/2010. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R4. Ext. R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report. The Court below relied upon Exts.A1 and A2 and granted 15% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 1,69,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,18,700/- per Are. 20. In LAR No. 11 of 2011, power of attorney of the claimant was examined as AW1. He relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed No.735/2008. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report and Ext.X2 is the plan. Commissioner has also identified the relied upon documents as well as basic document site. He relied upon Ext.A1 sale deed No.735/2008. Respondents produced Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.R2 is the basic document, sale deed No. 3963 of 2006. Ext.X1 is the commission report and Ext.X2 is the plan. Commissioner has also identified the relied upon documents as well as basic document site. The Court below having found that the acquired property is situated by the side of N.H. relied upon Ext.A1 and granted 5% enhancement considering the increase in land value from the date of document till the date of Section 4(1) notification and fixed the land value at Rs. 2,10,000/- per cent which corresponds to Rs. 5,68,100/- per Are. 21. The learned Government Pleader while impugning the aforesaid judgments submitted that the Court below failed to rely upon the basic document produced in the case. It is contended that the basic document property itself was a commercial site which actually reflected the commercial value of the property. A rough sketch prepared in the matter had been placed before us in order to understand the acquired land as well as the basic document land. It is pointed out that N.H. frontage is available only for lands involved in LAR Nos. 47, 48, 53, 55, 62, 65/2010 and 11/2011. None of the other lands have N.H. frontage. It is submitted that the documents Exts.A1 and A2 relied upon by the claimants were created knowing fully about the oncoming acquisition. The proposal to acquire the lands were very much known to the people in the locality and therefore, small extent of land within the acquired property had been sold showing an exorbitant value in order to claim the said amount as compensation. It is contended that though the property is situated by the side of N.H., the basic document is also situated by the side of a main road which leads to N.H. as well as State Highway, and is comparable with the acquired land. It is argued that commercial institutions are centered around the junction. It is also argued that the claimant in LAR No.48/2010 is the owner of Ext.A1 and the claimant in LAR No.47/10 is the owner of Ext.A2 property. Both the assignments took place on the very same day. Further, the claimants in those cases did not even appear before Court. The argument is that Exts.A1 and A2 are not genuine transactions, which should not have been relied upon by the Court below. Both the assignments took place on the very same day. Further, the claimants in those cases did not even appear before Court. The argument is that Exts.A1 and A2 are not genuine transactions, which should not have been relied upon by the Court below. The fact that there was no other document in the nearby locality by itself would show that the value of the land is much less than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the light of Section 51A of the LA Act, the basic document ought to have been accepted in evidence and there was no reason to reject the same. The report of the Advocate Commissioner should not have been relied upon especially in the light of the objection filed to the same by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Government Pleader had placed before us the following judgments:- (i) General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745 . This judgment is relied upon to emphasise that, if the relied upon transaction is of the year 1987, increase has to be applied only from the next year i.e., 1988. It was held that the increase has to be calculated on a cumulative basis. It was also held that as per the trend in the 90's, if the increase in market value in urban and semi urban area is 10% to 15% per annum, corresponding increase in the rural areas would be about 5 to 7.5 %. (ii) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kashiram (Dead) by LR.Gopilal, (2010) 14 SCC 506 . This judgment is relied upon to emphasise the point that if the sale deed relating to a small developed plot of land is to be the basis for determining market value of large undeveloped areas, appropriate deductions will have to be made towards development cost. In this case, it was held that appropriate deduction will have to be made towards development cost, which may vary from 20% to 75% of the price of developed plot. (iii) Iyasamy and another Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, (2010) 10 SCC 464 . This judgment is relied upon to contend that when the lands do not have proper connectivity, 65% deduction has to be made from the lands which has proper connectivity. (iv) Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) (6) SCC 47. (iii) Iyasamy and another Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, (2010) 10 SCC 464 . This judgment is relied upon to contend that when the lands do not have proper connectivity, 65% deduction has to be made from the lands which has proper connectivity. (iv) Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) (6) SCC 47. This judgment is relied upon to argue that a fraudulent move or design is not capable of direct proof in most cases. It can only be inferred. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that two sale instances which were executed two months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) stand out as transactions which are sham, collusive, lacks bonafide and have been executed with the intention to raise the price of land in question in the pretext of it being actual market value. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the judgment of the Reference Court. It is argued that when the property is valued based on a document within the acquired property, the Court below has adopted the best method. That apart, the report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly suggests the location of the property, which is very near to various commercial establishments and very near to a main junction. The potentiality of the land to be used for commercial purposes cannot be ruled out and therefore there is justification on the part of the Court below placing reliance upon Exts. A1 and A2. Learned counsel for claimants placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7916 to 7918/2011 and connected cases, wherein the Court reiterated the principles under which the land acquisition cases are to be decided. In the said case, the Apex Court had placed reliance upon the following judgments. Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors Vs. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 1 SCC 480 Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. M.K.Rafiq Saheb, (2011) 7 SCC 714 Smt. Basavva and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, (1991) 4 SCC 506 and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 . 23. For easy reference, we are relying upon the evidence adduced in LAR No.47/2010 and connected cases unless otherwise stated. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, (1991) 4 SCC 506 and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 . 23. For easy reference, we are relying upon the evidence adduced in LAR No.47/2010 and connected cases unless otherwise stated. The question to be considered in these batch of cases is whether the Court below was justified in rejecting the basic document, Ext. R4, for the purpose of valuing the land under acquisition and placing reliance upon Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds. 24. Section 4(1) notification was initially published in the gazette on 15/11/2008, in the Deshabhimani daily on 18/11/2008, Madhyamam daily on 20/11/2008 and in the locality on 29/4/2009. Similarly, the second batch of notification under Section 4(1) was published in the Kerala Gazette on 11/8/2009, in the daily newspapers on 29/6/2009 and 1/7/2009 and in the locality on 1/11/2009. 25. The Reference Court has placed much reliance on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The report of the Commissioner in LAR No.62/10 is marked as Ext.X1. Advocate Commissioner after having reported the details regarding the locality observes that land covered by the basic document, Ext.R4 is situated in Bangara Manjeswar Village in RS No.87/12C and at present Hindustan Petroleum Gas Agency is functioning with their office and go-down. The said property is situated by the hill side cross road to check post road. It is in a residential area and except the gas agency, no other commercial shops are around it. Near to the gas agency, there is a mosque and 'bajana mandir'. The plot is situated about more than 750 metres away from Hosangadi junction and sales tax check post, on the top of hillock and the road passing in front of the checkpost is a one way road. Thus, according to the Advocate Commissioner, the basic land is having lesser potential value than the acquired property. An objection has been filed to the said commission report by the Referring Officer stating that basic land adopted is situated on the side of a main road and the locality is a commercially important and fast developing area. The report that the basic land is having lesser potential value than the acquired land was denied. An objection has been filed to the said commission report by the Referring Officer stating that basic land adopted is situated on the side of a main road and the locality is a commercially important and fast developing area. The report that the basic land is having lesser potential value than the acquired land was denied. It is further indicated that the Commissioner ought to have reported that the basic land and acquired property are similarly situated. The report of the Commissioner which states that the consideration shown in document Nos.734/2008 and 735/2008 could be the market value, was denied. It is stated that the consideration shown in the said document is exorbitant and the said document is not genuine. The claimant has also filed an objection stating that the Commissioner ought to have made clear that a commercial building was in existence in the acquired land and it is situated in a commercially important locality. The Advocate Commissioner is not examined in the case. When an objection has been filed to the Advocate Commissioner's report, the Court below was not justified in placing complete reliance on the said report. True that the report of an Advocate Commissioner is evidence as contemplated under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.), but whether such evidence is acceptable in order to prove a particular fact has to be assessed based on the factual circumstances arising in the matter. In this case, when an objection has been filed to the Commissioner's report clearly indicating that Exts.A1 and A2 documents were not genuine, it was necessary that the Commissioner ought to have been examined in the case, before the Court below placing reliance upon the same especially regarding the comparability of the acquired land with that of basic land. Along with the Commissioner's report, he had also enclosed a detailed cost estimate submitted by one Ganesh B. with plans. This is with reference to a building situated in LAR No. 62/2010. In the objection filed, it was clearly indicated that the valuation of improvements as seen in the property covered by LAR No.65/10 made by the Commissioner is baseless and exorbitant and the value of structural improvements has to be rejected. This is with reference to a building situated in LAR No. 62/2010. In the objection filed, it was clearly indicated that the valuation of improvements as seen in the property covered by LAR No.65/10 made by the Commissioner is baseless and exorbitant and the value of structural improvements has to be rejected. When a specific objection had been raised by the respondent, it was incumbent on the part of the claimants to have examined the Advocate Commissioner and the Expert to prove the facts stated thereunder, which exercise has not been done in the present case. Under Order XXVI Rule 10(2), the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him is taken as evidence, and it shall form part of the record. But, the Court, or any of the parties may, with the permission of court examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in the report, as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. Where the Court is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct further evidence to be taken in the matter. In Ratnamma and others Vs. Mehbood, 2013 (2) KLT 648 , this Court held that the object of Order XXVI Rule 10 is to avoid the examination of Commissioner in Court to prove the facts of which he has direct knowledge. Only such facts which the Commissioner can state on the basis of his direct knowledge will be evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. If the Commissioner reports any facts on the basis of hearsay, such facts cannot be treated as evidence. Order XXVI Rue 10 (2) is not intended to admit in evidence whatever the Commissioner may report based on hearsay. In A. Narayani Vs. Kittan alias Krishnan, ILR 1997 (1) Ker 726, it is held that Commissioner's report is only an evidence in the case and is not binding on the Court. In land acquisition cases, when a claim is to be proved based on evidence, the report of the Advocate Commissioner can only be treated as evidence in respect of matters taken note of by him. His assessment regarding the market value and the comparison between one property and another cannot be treated as evidence. In land acquisition cases, when a claim is to be proved based on evidence, the report of the Advocate Commissioner can only be treated as evidence in respect of matters taken note of by him. His assessment regarding the market value and the comparison between one property and another cannot be treated as evidence. Such materials can only be termed as his opinion, which cannot be treated as evidence or proof of a fact which is in dispute. If one requires to prove such facts, the Commissioner has to be examined. In the case on hand, no such exercise was done. Even the Expert who had valued the building had not been examined. Without examining the said expert and especially when an objection is filed, it was not proper to have blindly accepted such opinion and a decision rendered thereon. 26. AW1, one of the claimant in LAR No.62/2010, in his chief affidavit had stated that the basic land is situated far away from N.H. and it is an agricultural land which can be used for construction of residential house and there is no commercial activity in the said area. The acquired lands are situated by the side of N.H. and there is a hotel and lodge building. He states that they have reclaimed the land by spending more than Rs. 10 lakhs and in the property in LAR No.65/10, there are buildings worth more than Rs. 15 lakhs. In cross examination, he states that Exts.A1 and A2 properties and acquired lands were reclaimed during March, 2008 and the documents were executed on 7/2/2008. He denied the fact that property covered by Exts.A1 and A2 were levelled before execution of the documents. According to him, it was levelled for constructing a shopping complex. He did not prepare any estimate for the proposed building complex. He further deposed that the purchasers of Exts.A1 and A2 were also business men and they are not doing real estate business. They are the claimants in LAR Nos.47 and 48/2010. He denied having knowledge about the acquisition at the time of execution of Exts.A1 and A2 documents. A pointed question was asked whether Exts.A1 and A2 were executed anticipating acquisition, which he denied. He also denied the suggestion that Exts.A1 and A2 reflected exorbitant prices and were not genuine documents. He further deposed that the building situated in LAR No.65/10 is 10 years old. A pointed question was asked whether Exts.A1 and A2 were executed anticipating acquisition, which he denied. He also denied the suggestion that Exts.A1 and A2 reflected exorbitant prices and were not genuine documents. He further deposed that the building situated in LAR No.65/10 is 10 years old. He purchased the land in the year 2006 but he does not remember the value at the time of purchase and he does not have the sale deed with him. He was specifically asked that he was not producing the title deeds since it would have shown the correct land value, which he denied. He was also asked whether the building in LAR No.65/10 had been correctly valued as per the prevailing PWD rates, which also he denied. 27. First we have to consider whether Exts.A1 and A2 can be relied upon for fixing the market value of land. Exts.A1 and A2 relates to acquisition of 2.83 Ares (7 cents) each for a value of Rs. 2 lakhs per cent. The property was purchased by the buyers from a larger extent of land available with the claimants in LAR No. 62/2010, about 9 months before the date of Section 4(1) notification. In a place like State of Kerala, it is well known that even prior to the land being notified for acquisition, the department for whom the acquisition is being made and the revenue authorities will conduct necessary survey and identify the land for acquisition. Only thereafter that the notification under Section 4(1) will be published. In between, several attempts will be made to prevent the acquisition. This is evident from Ext. R1, the Award Note, wherein it is recorded as under:- “The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Kannur has requested for acquisition of 4.56 Acres of land in Bangramanjeshwar Village of Kasaragod Taluk in Kasaragod District. For the purpose of construction of commercial Tax Check Post complex along with parking area for vehicle and comfort station. The lands requisitioned are as follows: Survey No. Extent (in Acres) 92/2B 1.22 92/7B 0.95 92/8B 0.86 92/9B 0.56 92/10B 0.96 92/13Bpt 0.01 Total 4.56 The Government have accorded sanction for acquisition of the above land, as per Government orders cited above. The lands requisitioned are as follows: Survey No. Extent (in Acres) 92/2B 1.22 92/7B 0.95 92/8B 0.86 92/9B 0.56 92/10B 0.96 92/13Bpt 0.01 Total 4.56 The Government have accorded sanction for acquisition of the above land, as per Government orders cited above. My predecessor in office had inspected the lands requisitioned along with the representatives of the Requisition Department and the field staff of this office and found that there are no objectionable elements such as Temple, Church, Mosque, Tomb, or the land used as burning or burial ground and in or around the land proposed for acquisition. A “Katte” which was built recently was noticed in RS No.92/9B. This sub-division stands registered as per Patta No.97 in the name of “Kalamma Deveru”. An objection petition was received on 6.8.08 from Sri.K.Janardhan Achariya the President of Sri.Kalika Parameshwari Temple Bangara Manjeshwar objecting the proposal of acquiring of any lands stands registered as per Patta No.97. The letter was addressed to 1. The Secretary, Finance Department, 2. The District Collector, Kasaragod, 3. Superintendent Survey and land Records Kasaragod; 4. The Spl.Thasildar, (LA) Kasaragod. This letter was received even prior to the receipt of requisition from the R.A. A letter was issued from this office to the Requisition Authority seeking his opinion as to whether the land excluding the sub-divisions 92/9B which belongs to Kalika Parameshwari Temple and where the newly build “Katte” is existed and other subdivisions 92/10B and 92/13Bpt which contains one Hotel and residential building and whether the remaining 3.03 Acres of land is sufficient for the purpose. In reply to that letter, the Requisition authority has informed that no temple or burial ground was noticed at the time of the visit with the concerned officials on 22/10/08 that the structure was temporarily created to defeat land acquisition that changing of the land requisitioned cannot be considered.” Therefore, it is quite reasonable that when a small extent of land having 2.83 Ares each has been assigned, there is every possibility of the land being conveyed taking into account the possibility of acquisition of the entire land holding. AW1 in his evidence did not state that he is a party to Exts.A1 and A2. But the document evidences that he is also an assignor to Exts.A1 and A2. If he was an assignor to Exts.A1 and A2, he should have known and stated that before Court. AW1 in his evidence did not state that he is a party to Exts.A1 and A2. But the document evidences that he is also an assignor to Exts.A1 and A2. If he was an assignor to Exts.A1 and A2, he should have known and stated that before Court. The very fact that he had not stated such matters before Court indicates that he was not even aware of the said assignment, or he does not intend to face cross examination regarding genuineness of the documents. The claimants in LAR Nos.47/2010 and 48/2010 who were purchasers of Exts.A1 and A2, did not enter the box. When claims are made based on the documents under which they have purchased the property, they should have entered the box and subjected themselves to cross examination in order to prove the genuineness of the transaction, especially when it was questioned by the Government during cross examination of AW1. Further, it is rather clear from Ext.R4 document of 2006 that there cannot be such a huge increase in the price in the locality when compared to Exts.A1 and A2. As per Ext.R4, the genuineness of which is not doubted, the value is only Rs. 20,000/- per cent corresponding to Rs. 49,420/- per Are. Within two years, the price of the land in the locality cannot increase about 800 to 900 percentage. AW1 in his evidence has stated that they had spent about Rs. 10 lakhs for reclaiming the property, which means that the property was not fit for any construction without spending substantial amount. When no evidence was adduced to prove that Exts.A1 and A2 were genuine instances of sale, Court below committed serious error in assuming that the transaction was genuine. The finding of the Court below that the respondent did not raise any objection regarding the genuineness of the document is wrong as appropriate objection has been filed and the claimants were also cross examined pointing out the infirmity in the document. The Apex Court in Trishala Jain (supra) held that two sale instances which were executed two months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) stand out as transactions which are sham, collusive, lacks bonafide and have been executed with the intention to raise the price of land in question in the pretext of it being actual market value. The Apex Court in Trishala Jain (supra) held that two sale instances which were executed two months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) stand out as transactions which are sham, collusive, lacks bonafide and have been executed with the intention to raise the price of land in question in the pretext of it being actual market value. In the case on hand, though there is a time gap of 8 months from the date of Exts.A1 and A2 with reference to notification under Section 4(1), it is rather clear from the materials placed on record that the people in the locality were aware of the acquisition and several objections had been made to avoid the acquisition. Taking into account the entire factual circumstances, we are of the view that Exts.A1 and A2 documents cannot be treated as genuine instances of sale for the purpose of valuing the land under acquisition. 28. The only other material available is the basic document, Ext.R4. The Advocate Commissioner reported that it is not comparable with the acquired land, which opinion cannot be treated as evidence. The Commissioner was expected to inform the Court about the nature and lie of the property, its nearness to important roads, nearby establishments etc., and it is for the Court to decide on the comparability of the document site with reference to the acquired property. Though none had been examined to prove the basic document, it can be treated as evidence in the light of Section 51A of the LA Act. As per the Award Note, the property is 350 metres towards east from the acquired land. No oral evidence is forthcoming. As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, the basic land property is 750 metres away from the Hosangadi Junction and Sales Tax Check Post, Vamanjoor. He has also reported that Vamanjoor Check Post Hosangadi Angadipadav road is 300 meters from the acquired land. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that basic land property is only about 350 or 450 meters from the acquired land. At the time of purchase, there was no building in the said boundary. Advocate Commissioner reports that the said property has commercial buildings. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that basic land property is only about 350 or 450 meters from the acquired land and was purchased for commercial activities. At the time of purchase, there was no building in the said boundary. Advocate Commissioner reports that the said property has commercial buildings. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that basic land property is only about 350 or 450 meters from the acquired land and was purchased for commercial activities. Properties in front of the N.H. can also be utilized for commercial activities. When a land is being utilized for commercial activity and it was purchased for commercial activity, the land lying by the side of N.H. can as well have the potential of being utilized for commercial activity. Exts.X1 and X2 plan produced in LAR No.11/2011 gives a clear picture of the acquired land, basic document and the relied upon document site. 29. Therefore, it would be safe to fix the land value based on Ext.R4 document. Some of the properties have NH frontage, and some do not. We shall first value the properties which do not have NH frontage. The value of the property was Rs. 20,000/- per cent as on 19/10/2006. Taking into account the possible increase in the market value of land upto the date of notification, i.e., 29/4/2009 and 1/11/2009, a margin of 3 years can be given at the rate of 15% each year on cumulative basis, which would come to Rs. 30,418/-. Thereafter, taking into account the proximity of the acquired land to the N.H., though it does not have the N.H. road frontage, it would be better to give a further enhancement of 50% on Rs. 30,418/- and then it will come to Rs. 30,418 + Rs.15,209 = Rs. 45,627/- per cent which will correspond to Rs. 1,12,745/- per Are. As far as the properties having N.H. road frontage are concerned (LAR Nos.47, 48, 53/10, 55/10, 62/10, 65/10, 67/2010 and 11/2011), those properties have more potential than those which do not have the said advantage. Those properties can be given 50% enhancement of the land value fixed for the properties which does not have N.H. road frontage in which event the land value per cent would come to Rs. 1,12,745 + 56,372.50 = Rs. 1,69,117.50/- per Are rounded to Rs. 1,69,200/- per Are. 30. The building and structures had been valued in LAR No. 65/2010. Ext.X1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.X2 is the valuation statement submitted along with the plan by the Expert Engineer. 1,12,745 + 56,372.50 = Rs. 1,69,117.50/- per Are rounded to Rs. 1,69,200/- per Are. 30. The building and structures had been valued in LAR No. 65/2010. Ext.X1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.X2 is the valuation statement submitted along with the plan by the Expert Engineer. The Commissioner was not examined. The Expert Civil Engineer was also not examined. Objection has been filed by the Referring Officer to the Commissioner's report. The Reference Court has accepted the same as reasonable after going through Exts.X1 and X2. To grant enhanced compensation, the Reference Court observed that the Advocate Commissioner's report can be taken at its face value and no attempt had been made by the respondent to challenge the report by examining the Advocate Commissioner. As already stated, an objection has been filed to the Commissioner's report and it was specifically stated that the valuation of improvements in the property covered by LAR No.65/2010 is baseless and exorbitant. It was also mentioned that the valuation of the structural improvements made by the Engineer is incorrect and is liable to be rejected. Further, it is contended that the measurement method adopted for calculation and the rate adopted are baseless and exorbitant. Advocate Commissioner's report is treated as evidence in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10(2). The Court by its order dated 25/3/2011 had appointed the Advocate Commissioner. He filed a memo seeking assistance of an expert. By order dated 29/7/2011, the Court directed furnishing an expert panel and, on 10/8/2011, Sri. Ganesh B, Consulting Civil Engineer, was appointed as expert to assist the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the report of the expert can also be treated as evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2). It is evident to note that the Land Acquisition Officer had valued the building with two borewells at Rs. 9,23,681/- and along with the compound wall and foundation, the total valuation came to Rs. 9,48,551/-. The Expert valued the entire structure at Rs. 15,24,582/- and thereafter depreciation for 18 years was calculated by giving 9% reduction and thereafter arrived at Rs. 13,87,300/-. It is rather apparent that it was an old tiled building. What was the basis for such a valuation is not discernible from the estimate produced and there is no statement of the Expert Engineer. On what basis the depreciation had been calculated is also not borne out from records. 13,87,300/-. It is rather apparent that it was an old tiled building. What was the basis for such a valuation is not discernible from the estimate produced and there is no statement of the Expert Engineer. On what basis the depreciation had been calculated is also not borne out from records. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Sushama Kumari, 2010 (2) KLT 972 , while considering similar matters held that the depreciation had to be calculated at 5/6 % per year. Paragraph 8 is relevant, which reads as under:- “8. The Kerala Land Acquisition Manual binds only the Land Acquisition Officer and does not bind the Court. But the practice of deducting depreciation from the present value of the building taking into account the age of the building has been judicially approved. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Kuruvila, 2005 (3) KLT 580 was a case where the issue was regarding the correct percentage of depreciation to be deducted for B class buildings acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Their Lordships of the Division Bench, after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court such as Bhavani Ramalakshmy Vs. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 581 and Mytheen Kunju Abdulrahiman Kunju Vs. State, 1954 KLT 798 wherein also the method of deducting depreciation for the purpose of determining the value of the old building is recognised and approved, held approving the judgment of Bhavani's case that if the building is B class building, the percentage of depreciation to be deducted is 5/6 % per year and that the deduction is to be made from the very first year of construction itself.” It is also apposite to refer to the judgment in Bhavani Ramalakshmy Vs. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 581 . Para 6 reads as under: “6 . What is relevant for the purpose of valuing the building is not the schedule of rates of the Public Works Department. The claimant is entitled to get the market value of the building as on the relevant date. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 581 . Para 6 reads as under: “6 . What is relevant for the purpose of valuing the building is not the schedule of rates of the Public Works Department. The claimant is entitled to get the market value of the building as on the relevant date. Where the subject to be valued is a building apart from the site, the principle of fixing value by ascertaining the cost of reproducing the building at the relevant time and then allowing for depreciation in consideration of the age of the building and for the costs of such repairs as might be required apart from depreciation is quite a well known and a recognised method of valuing buildings for the purpose of compensation. That method is not in anyway affected by the land acquisition. This principle was laid down by the Privy Council in Harichand Vs. Secretary of State, AIR 1939 P.C. 235 and Secretary of State Vs. Varain Khanna, AIR 1942 P.C. 35 . These two decisions of the Privy Council were considered and approved by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v C.L. Palu, 1979 (3) S.C.C. 780 . So also, a Division Bench of the Travancore Cochin High Court in Abdulrahiman Kunju Vs. State, 1954 KLT 798 considered the Privy Council decisions and held that in order to arrive at the present value of the building, the proper course would be to find out the cost of constructing a building of that type at the time of acquisition and then deduct from it the depreciation value on account of the age of the building and also the amount required for the repairs to keep the building in a fit condition. The natural way to look at the matter would be to find out the approximate number of years and deduct the quotient as depreciation for each year. In the case of first class buildings, no depreciation is to be deducted for the first five years and then 5/6% has to be deducted for every subsequent year. Due allowance has to be made for maintenance and repairs. In the case of second class buildings, 5/6% depreciation has to be deducted for each year.” Therefore, even assuming that the valuation will be correct, the depreciation ought to have been at 15% in which event, the valuation would come to Rs. 15,24,582 - Rs. Due allowance has to be made for maintenance and repairs. In the case of second class buildings, 5/6% depreciation has to be deducted for each year.” Therefore, even assuming that the valuation will be correct, the depreciation ought to have been at 15% in which event, the valuation would come to Rs. 15,24,582 - Rs. 2,28,687 = Rs. 12,95,895/-. Apparently, the building valuation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer based on PWD rates. No evidence had been adduced to prove the valuation of the buildings by the State. But, as already stated, the Expert Engineer was also not examined. The depreciation computed was also not correct especially in respect of an old building. Taking into consideration all these facts, we are of the view that 15% has to be reduced from the value assessed by the Expert Engineer and accordingly the value of structures for the building is fixed at Rs. 12,95,895/-, instead of Rs. 13,87,300/-. 31. The Advocate Commissioner has also calculated the cost of bore well in the property in LAR No.65/2010 at Rs. 26,800/-. Court had fixed the value of bore well at Rs. 16,800/- taking into consideration the factual circumstances involved in the matter. We do not think that, with the limited material available, any interference can be made to the said award. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below shall stand modified as under:- (i) In LAR Nos.47/2010, 48/2010, 53/2010, 55/2010, 62/2010, 65/2010, 67/2010 and 11/2011, the land value is fixed at Rs. 1,69,200/- (Rupees One lakh sixty nine thousand two hundred only) per Are. (ii) In LAR Nos. 49/2010, 50/2010, 51/2010, 52/2010, 54/2010, 56/2010, 57/2010, 63/2010, 64/2010 and 66/2010, the land value is fixed at Rs. 1,12,745/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand seven hundred and forty five only) per Are. (iii) In LAR No.65/2010, the value of building is fixed at Rs. 12,95,895/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred and ninety five only). The value fixed by the Court below for the borewell is confirmed. (iv) The claimants shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation after deducting the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer along with all statutory benefits and interest as decreed by the Court below.