JUDGMENT : A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. As all these Land Acquisition Appeals impugn the judgments in various Land Acquisition References pertaining to the same acquisition namely “Acquisition of Land for Development of B1– D1 Ring Road, Pathanamthitta”, and are covered by the same notification dated 02.05.2005 issued in terms of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. Brief facts: 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these Land Acquisition Appeals are as follows: The batch of appeals before us comprise of 16 appeals preferred by the parties and one appeal preferred by the State. The details of the appeals are as given below: Category I Sl. No. LAA No. LAR No. Owner Name Extent (Ares) Sy. No. 4(1) Notification Award by LAO (Per Are) Award by Reference Court (Per Are) 1. 443/2014 39/2008 P.G. Varughese & Annamma Varughese 0.31 36/2-6 02.05.2005 Rs.49,505/- Rs.2,50,000/- 2. 466/2014 68/2008 Annie Thomas Philip 0.90 36/3-15 02.05.2005 Rs.49,505/- Rs.2,50,000/- Category II Sl. No. LAA No. LAR No. Owner Name Extent (Ares) Sy. No. 4(1)Notification Award by LAO (Per Are) Award by Reference Court (Per Are) 1. 372/2014 36/2008 E.T. Mathai 0.50 34/7-2 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.3,75,000/- 2. 36/2014 32/2008 Easow, Molikutty Easow 0.75 38/2-2 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.3,00,000/- 3. 280/2014 73/2008 Latheef 1.62 36/3-2 21.03.2006 Rs.43,564/- Rs.4,00,000/- 4. 444/2014 67/2008 Trustee, St.George Orthodox Church 0.30 34/8-6 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.3,75,000/- 5. 566/2014 21/2008 Benchi Samuel 0.95 36/4-10 21.03.2006 Rs.43,564/- Rs.4,69,300/- 6. 905/2014 17/2008 Baselios Mar Cleemis Catholica Bava, Represented by Fr.Vavoli Mepurathu 2.70 34/1-2 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.5,00,000/- 7. 906/2014 37/2008 John Thomas Kakkanattu and others 4.25 365/5-1 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.5,00,000/- 8. 163/2016 34/2008 O.V. Cherian 1.60 38/3-6 02.05.2005 Rs.43,564/- Rs.3,00,000/- 9. 373/2014 66/2008 Varughese Mathai and Mary Varughese 0.52 36/2-2 02.05.2005 Rs.38,039/- Rs.2,00,000/- Category III Sl. No. LAA No. LAR No. Owner Name Extent (Ares) Sy. No. 4(1) Notification Award by LAO (Per Are) Award by Reference Court (Per Are) 1. 88/2020 State Appeal 28/2008 Lilla Mathew 1.38 35/2-15 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- 2. 540/2022 28/2008 Lilla Mathew 1.38 35/2-15 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- Mathai Samuel, 3. 451/2014 30/2008 Kunjamma Samuel 0.30 38/2-6 02.05.2005 Rs.28,654/- Rs.2,00,000/- 4. 27/2015 19/2008 Eleshubhama 0.48 35/2-7 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- 5. 45/2015 41/2008 T.G. Varghese, Joshy Varghese, Joby Varghese 4.50 35/3-3 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- 6. 139/2015 43/2008 Radhakrishnan Nair 1.44 0.75 36/6-2 38/2-10 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.1,50,000/- Discussion & findings: 3. 540/2022 28/2008 Lilla Mathew 1.38 35/2-15 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- Mathai Samuel, 3. 451/2014 30/2008 Kunjamma Samuel 0.30 38/2-6 02.05.2005 Rs.28,654/- Rs.2,00,000/- 4. 27/2015 19/2008 Eleshubhama 0.48 35/2-7 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- 5. 45/2015 41/2008 T.G. Varghese, Joshy Varghese, Joby Varghese 4.50 35/3-3 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.2,00,000/- 6. 139/2015 43/2008 Radhakrishnan Nair 1.44 0.75 36/6-2 38/2-10 02.05.2005 Rs.24,338/- Rs.1,50,000/- Discussion & findings: 3. For the sake of convenience, we have chosen to deal with these appeals under two categories; namely (1) those pertaining to dry lands that were acquired in terms of the notification and (2) those pertaining to wetlands that were acquired pursuant to the notification. Re: Dry Lands: 4. At the very outset, we may point out that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) as well as the Reference Court had arrived at the market value of the land by further categorizing the dry lands into two sub-categories based on the distance of the acquired lands from the Thiruvalla - Kumbazha main road. Similarly, a separate categorization was effected in respect of the wetlands that were acquired in terms of the notification as already noticed. The categorization of the dry lands that were acquired into two further sub-categories by adopting the belting system is one that cannot be legally countenanced in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Besco Limited v. State of Haryana [2023 SCC Online SC 1071] as also our own judgment reported in State of Kerala v. Sarasamma & Others [2025 (2) KHC Short Note 10]. In the last mentioned judgment, while dealing with the belting system, we had found that the categorization or belting system is normally adopted by the State for the purpose of determination of compensation payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act so as to bring about a classification between the different parcels of land acquired while estimating the market value of those lands for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to the deprived land owners. The Supreme Court in BesCo Limited (supra) had frowned upon the adoption of the belting system when large tracts of land are acquired for a common purpose. The Supreme Court in BesCo Limited (supra) had frowned upon the adoption of the belting system when large tracts of land are acquired for a common purpose. Since in the instance case, the various parcels of dry land were acquired for the common purpose of developing the B1–D1 Ring Road in Pathanamthitta District, we are of the view that there can be no justification for the State adopting a belting system and sub-categorizing the dry lands acquired for the purpose. This is more so, when we find that the lands acquired were in close proximity to each other and not very far from the Thiruvalla - Kumbazha main road. 5. Once we dispense with the sub-categorization as evidenced by the belting system, the logical consequence would be that a common value would have to be adopted as the market value for all the dry lands that were acquired in connection with the acquisition proceedings. In this connection, we note that while the Land Acquisition Officer had arrived at a figure of Rs.43,564/- per Are as the market value of the acquired dry lands, by relying on a Sale Exemplar (Document No.2654/2003 of the Pathanamthitta Sub Registry). In the reference carried by the land owners before the Reference Court, the Reference Court had placed reliance on the certified copies of the judgments dated 30.06.2010 and 31.03.2011 respectively, of the Reference Court in LAR No.27 of 2008 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta and LAR No.63 of 2008 of Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, where the Court had arrived at a figure of Rs.6,81,833/- per Are in respect of lands that were acquired in the vicinity of the present acquisition for a similar purpose, albeit under a different notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court in the instant cases, however, did not straight away apply the market value determined by the Reference Court in the earlier proceeding referred above, but chose to compare the said price with the market value of the land evidenced by another Sale Exemplar (Document No.3212 of 2010 of SRO, Pathanamthitta dated 23.12.2010), where 19 square meters of dry land had been sold for Rs.23,000/- in the year 2010. The market value computed for the land in the said document worked out to Rs.1,21,052.63/- per Are. The market value computed for the land in the said document worked out to Rs.1,21,052.63/- per Are. Taking into consideration both the figures above, the Reference Court in the instant appeals arrived at a figure of Rs.3,75,000/- per Are and fixed the same as the market value applicable to dry lands covered by the present acquisition. While there is nothing in the impugned judgment of the Reference Court that indicates the rationale adopted by the Reference Court to arrive at the said figure representing the market value of the dry lands acquired from the appellants herein, we feel that it was nothing more than a calculated guess work resorted to by the Reference Court. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Reghuraj, assisted by Sri. Vivek Menon, on behalf of the appellants in LAA Nos.36, 280, 905 & 906 of 2014, 15, 27 & 139 of 2015 and 163 of 2016 and Sri. George Mathew, the learned counsel for the appellants in LAA Nos.372, 373, 443, 444, 451, 466 & 566 of 2014, and 544 of 2022 would point out that LAR No.35 of 2008 was decided along with LAR No.34 of 2008 and LAR No.32 of 2008 by a common judgment where the market value of the dry lands acquired was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- per Are by the Reference Court. The land owners covered by LAR No.35 of 2008, however, approached this Court through LAA No.164 of 2015 impugning the said common order of the Reference Court. On that occasion, this Court by its judgment in the said LAA noted that prior to the hearing and the passing of the order in the said LAR, the 2 nd claimant therein had died and thus the said claimant was not effectively heard at the time of disposal of the said LAR. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter back to the Reference Court with a permission to reopen the reference so as to implead the legal heirs of the 2 nd claimant in that LAR and to dispose the LAR afresh. It would appear that the Reference Court, thereafter, impleaded the additional 3 rd and 4 th claimants in the said LAR and heard the matter and considered the evidence that was brought on record. It would appear that the Reference Court, thereafter, impleaded the additional 3 rd and 4 th claimants in the said LAR and heard the matter and considered the evidence that was brought on record. The Reference Court then proceeded to pass the judgment dated 27.08.2021 in LAR No.35 of 2008 wherein it fixed the market value of the dry lands acquired from the land owners at Rs.6,81,833/- per Are by adopting the value shown in Annexures A1 and A2 judgments referred above. We are also informed that while there was no appeal preferred by the State against the said judgment of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta in LAR No.35 of 2008. That apart, a subsequent State Appeal against a Reference Court’s judgment that adopted the market value mentioned in Annexures A1 and A2 judgments in respect of lands in the vicinity that were acquired under a prior notification under Section 4(1), was dismissed by this Court by its judgment dated 17.12.2018 in LAA No.766 of 2013. The upshot of the above, therefore, is that the market value of the dry lands acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) in the instant appeals can be taken as Rs.6,81,833/- per Are, since that is the value that has been finally accepted as market value for similar lands acquired under the same notification and in the vicinity of the lands covered by these appeals. We therefore, fix the market value of the dry lands acquired under the notification dated 02.05.2005 and covered by LAA Nos.36, 280, 372, 443, 444, 466, 566, 905, 906 of 2014 & 163 of 2015 at Rs.6,81,833/- per Are. The appellants in these appeals are also entitled to all the statutory benefits including proportionate costs that flow from the fixation of the said market value. However, we make it clear that the State shall not be liable to pay interest due to the appellants for the periods covered by interim orders of this Court, which have made it clear that for the period of delay occasioned by the appellants in filing the appeals before this Court, the State will not be liable to pay the interest. Re: Wet Lands: 7. Re: Wet Lands: 7. As far as LAA Nos.451 of 2014, 27, 139 & 45 of 2015, 88 of 2020 and 540 of 2022 pertaining to the wetlands that were acquired under the same notification are concerned, we find that the Land Acquisition Officer himself had effected a proportionate reduction from the market value arrived at in respect of dry lands that were acquired under the notification, and adopted the reduced value towards market value of the wetlands that were acquired pursuant to the said notification. While for the dry lands that were acquired under the notification, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed an amount of Rs.49,505/- per Are as the market value, in respect of the wetlands, he had arrived at a figure of Rs.24,338/- per Are towards market value. Taking cue from the said fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, we are of the view that the ratio of the market value of the wetlands : market value of the dry lands; if applied to the market value of the dry lands arrived at by us in this judgment, we would have the benefit of a new figure representing the proportionate market value for the wetlands that were acquired under the notification in question. The computation accordingly would be as follows: (24,338/49,505) x 6,81,833/- = 3,35,207.5 (rounded to 3,35,210/- per Are) 8. Thus the said amount of Rs.3,35,210/- per Are, in our opinion, can be safely adopted and fixed as the market value of the wetlands acquired in terms of the notification aforementioned. Accordingly, we fix the market value of wetlands, covered by LAA Nos.451 of 2014, 27, 139 & 45 of 2015, 88 of 2020 and 540 of 2022 as Rs.3,35,210/- per Are. The appellants in LAA Nos.540 of 2022, 451 of 2014, 27 of 2015, 45 of 2015 and 138 of 2015 are entitled to a fixation of market value in respect of their lands at the rate of Rs.3,35,210/-. They will also be entitled to all the statutory benefits including proportionate costs flowing from the said enhanced fixation of market value. The appellants in LAA Nos.540 of 2022, 451 of 2014, 27 of 2015, 45 of 2015 and 138 of 2015 are entitled to a fixation of market value in respect of their lands at the rate of Rs.3,35,210/-. They will also be entitled to all the statutory benefits including proportionate costs flowing from the said enhanced fixation of market value. We make it clear that the State shall not be liable to pay the interest due to the appellants for the periods covered by interim orders of this Court, which have made it clear that for the said period of delay occasioned by the appellants in filing the appeals before this Court, the State will not be liable to pay the interest. Conclusion: 9. The appeals are thus disposed by allowing all the appeals preferred by the parties and dismissing the State Appeal, i.e., LAA No.88 of 2020. 10. Before parting with these appeals, we must point out that in respect of appeal No.540 of 2022, the appellant had preferred the appeal as an indigent person without payment of the Court fee that is otherwise payable for maintaining the appeal. Since we have found the appellant to be entitled to an enhanced amount by way of compensation, he will be liable to remit the Court fee in respect of the appeal preferred by him. Accordingly, we direct that the Court fee as applicable shall be recovered from the amount of compensation deposited before the Reference Court. On the State depositing the amount before the Reference Court, the Court shall deduct the requisite Court Fee before releasing the balance amount to the appellant. The appellants, who have not paid the balance Court fee, shall remit the same, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The decree in favour of such appellants shall be drawn up only after receiving the balance Court fee from them.