JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the award dated 30.09.2013 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Manjeri in LAR No.46 of 2012. Appellant was the claimant in the LAR. 2. An extent of 0.0400 hectares of land, 9.88 cents, comprised in survey No.225/2 of Karuvarakundu Village owned by the claimant was acquired for the purpose of construction of Karuvarakundu bridge and approach road. Section 4 (1) Notification was issued on 02.01.2008. An amount of Rs.1,49,512/- was awarded at the rate of Rs.3,300/- per cent as compensation as per award No.7/12 dated 08.05.2012 and the land was taken possession of on 07.12.2011. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded as compensation, the claimant moved the reference court. The reference court thereupon enhanced the land value to Rs.4,950/ per cent. Dissatisfied with the enhancement, claimant has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Sri.Cibi Thomas, Advocate, for the appellant and Smt.Rekha C.Nair, learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award of the reference court is illegal and the enhancement of Rs.1,650/- per cent granted by the reference court is meagre and inadequate. It is contended that the reference court had overlooked Ext.A1 document. The said document dated 28.10.2000 related to an extent of 4 cents of land in the same village, which was purchased for a consideration of Rs.56,000/-. Section 4(1) notification for acquiring claimant's land is dated 02.01.2008. Thus, the reference court ought to have appreciated that the the prevailing centage value in the area prior to 8 years was at least Rs.14,000/-. The finding of the court below that Ext.A1 cannot be relied on since its is of a transaction 8 years prior to the notification is unsustainable as it is settled law that even post notification documents can be taken into consideration while fixing the value in land acquisition. The reference court ought to have granted a centage value of at least Rs.75,000/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference court erred in not taking into account Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner which had categorically stated that the centage value in the area on the date of acquisition is Rs.1,00,000/-. The reference court ought to have granted a centage value of at least Rs.75,000/-. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference court erred in not taking into account Ext.C1 report of the Advocate Commissioner which had categorically stated that the centage value in the area on the date of acquisition is Rs.1,00,000/-. The reference court also failed to appreciate the deposition of AW1 and to undertake a combined reading of the said deposition along with the documents produced by the claimant, which clearly revealed that the value of the property was much more than what had been awarded. The court below also overlooked the fact that the acquired property is a fertile land whereas the basic land is situated in a non- residential area without any locational importance. The Commissioner had specifically deposed that the acquired land is situated in an area where all facilities are available. The acquired land had road access to Nilambur Perumpilavu National Highway and from Akkara Pulvetta Panchayat Road. It had been admitted by RW1 that there was a concrete bridge for getting access to the acquired property from the PWD road even before acquisition whereas the basic land had no such facilities and was also incapable of being used for agricultural purposes as it was a barren land. The learned counsel for the appellant thus contended that the award of the reference court is fit to be interfered with and the compensation awarded has to be enhanced. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by this Court in Joy C.P. and others v. Special Tahsildar for land acquisition (G.) No. 1 Palakkad and others , wherein this Court had referring to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] and Loveleen Kumar v. State of Haryana and others [2018 KHC 6430] held that there is no inevitable rule that a document beyond five years cannot be considered at all. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the award had been duly rendered by the reference court after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and that the same did not require any interference in appeal. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the award had been duly rendered by the reference court after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and that the same did not require any interference in appeal. It is contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader that Ext.A1 document which is admittedly of a transaction that is more than eight years prior to the acquisition of the land of the claimant is not a reliable document and that the reference court was justified in rejecting the same. Reliance is placed on the dictum in Loveleen Kumar (supra) wherein placing reliance on ONGC (supra) it had been observed that a transaction or acquisition over five years before the present acquisition is an unreliable standard. Specific reliance is placed on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC (supra), which reads as follows: “15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years, (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighborhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied on transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four or five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighboring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.” (Emphasis added) Relying on the above dictum, the learned Senior Government Pleader contended that reliance placed on Ext.A1, which is 8 years prior to the acquisition, is unreliable and was hence validly declined by the reference court. The award does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The award does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The reference court has duly taken note of the fact that the acquired properties are situated by the side of a river and that it is an agricultural land as well as a residential plot. That the acquired property is situated within Karuvarakundu Panchayat which is a fast developing area and that within the close vicinity of the acquired land all conveniences and facilities were available are also duly taken note of by the reference court. The existence of road access from the acquired properties to Nilambur Perumpilavu National Highway and from Akkarapulvetta Panchayat Road is also borne out from records. The reference court had also taken note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Authority had by relying on Ext.R1 document which is dated 15.02.2008 granted a mere enhancement of 10% thereon. It had been concluded by the reference court that since the acquired land has much more importance than the basic land and taking note of tendered evidence, giving a mere increase of 10% is not sufficient and justified. However, the reliance placed by the claimant on Ext.A1 certified copy of the sale deed of the year 2000 was turned down by stating that the said document being years prior to the date of acquisition, cannot be relied on. The reference court thereafter reasoned that, on the basis of the evidence available, an increase of 50% of the value shown in Ext.R1 document relied on by the respondent can be granted. Taking note of the fact that by relying on the basic document, the Land Acquisition Officer had given an amount of Rs.3,300/- per cent to the claimants and an increase of 50%, would come to Rs.1,650/- (Rs.3,300x 50/100 = Rs.1,650) , the reference court concluded that the claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,950/- per cent (3,300 + 1650 = 4,950/-). 7. 7. I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC (supra) has held that the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proven market value of nearby lands in previous years though proper, the said method is reasonably safe only when it is relied on with respect to transactions/acquisitions that precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four or five years, beyond which it would be unsafe. Here Ext.A1 sale deed which the appellant put forth as a reliable exemplar, is 8 years prior to the acquisition and hence hit by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence the rejection of Ext.A1 and reliance placed by the Reference Court on Ext.R1 which is contemporaneous to the acquisition and relating to a property situated in the same village cannot be found fault with. However, the fact that the acquired land is more beneficially placed and important than the land covered by Ext.R1 document having been brought out in evidence and the reference court after being convinced of the same granted an enhancement of 50% thereupon. I note that the increase of 50% from the amount covered in Ext.R1 is insufficient. The reference court had been convinced that the acquired property situated within Karuvarakundu Panchayat is a fast developing area which had within its close vicinity all facilities unlike the land covered vide Ext.R1 which was a barren land with lesser accessibility. Ext.C1, Commission report and the importance of the acquired land also points to the said fact. Hence, I conclude that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be fair, just and proper to re-fix 50% increase in the value shown in Ext.R1 document relied on by the respondents towards fixing compensation, and refix the same at 95% of the value shown in Ext.R1. The enhanced compensation fixed by the reference court at Rs.4,950/- per cent, is thus refixed as Rs.6,435/- per cent. (3,300x95/100=3135, 3,300+3135=6,435/-) Accordingly, this L.A.A. is disposed of holding that the appellant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,435/- per cent commensurate to the extent of land acquired from her. She shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits in accordance with law.