JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. The above appeal and Cross Objection arise out of the judgment and decree in L.A.R. No.38 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal and Cross Objection are as follows: An extent of 13.55 Ares of dry land, comprised in Re-survey No.53/30-62 in Block No.53 of Aluva West Village, belonging to the appellant/claimant was acquired by the Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition General], Ernakulam for the purpose of adhoc augmentation to Kochi Water Supply Scheme. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27.9.1996 in respect of Aluva West Village (Aluva Municipality). The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.44,510/- per Are. Dissatisfied with the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . In support of his contention that the land was valued much higher than what has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Exts.A1 to A12 documents were produced before the reference court. On the other hand, Exts.B1 to B9 documents were produced on the side of the respondents. The claimant sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. Exts.C1, C1(a), C1(b), C2, and C2(a) are the report, sketch, and valuation report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. AW1 to AW3 were examined on behalf of the claimant. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the reference court found that Exts.A9 to A12 documents were post-notification documents and, therefore, did not accept the contention of the claimant. Relying on Ext.A6 document executed in the year 1993, the reference court applied 12% cumulative increase to the valuation reflected in the said document and fixed the land value at Rs.1,18,013.952/- per Are which is rounded to Rs.1,18,014/-. In addition to the above, the claimant also sought severance compensation for the remaining extent of 20.10 Ares of land. In support of his contentions the claimant relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the reference court fixed 50% of the land value as severance compensation. In addition to the above, the claimant also sought severance compensation for the remaining extent of 20.10 Ares of land. In support of his contentions the claimant relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the reference court fixed 50% of the land value as severance compensation. It is aggrieved by the fixation of the market value of the land acquired, the claimant has approached this Court in the present Land Acquisition Appeal, and the State has preferred Cross Objection, aggrieved by the severance compensation granted by the reference Court. 3. Heard P.K. Sajeevan the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. T.K. Shajahan the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State in the Cross Objection. 4. On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the Bar, we are of the considered view that the reference court erred egregiously in discarding Ext.A12 document. No doubt, Exts.A9 to A12 documents are post-notification documents that cannot be relied on for the purpose of fixing the market value. However, that cannot be the case as far as Ext.A12 is concerned. When we read the contents of Ext.A12, the copy of the Sale Deed No.1492/96, we find that the same was executed on 9.4.1996. In the present case, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 27.9.1996. Therefore, inasmuch as Ext.A12, being a pre-notification document, necessarily the reference court ought to have taken into consideration as an exemplar and fix the market value accordingly. When we see the extent of land which is the subject matter of sale under Ext.A12, we find that an extent of 1.800 cents of land in Resurvey No.83 of Aluva West Village is seen sold for a total consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-. Therefore, the value per cent would come to Rs.2,38,888/-. The land sought to be acquired is also in the Aluva West Village. 5. In Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [ (2022) 7 SCC 563 ], the Supreme Court has held that the market value with respect to the land in the same village has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value in the case of land acquisition. 5. In Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [ (2022) 7 SCC 563 ], the Supreme Court has held that the market value with respect to the land in the same village has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the market value in the case of land acquisition. Therefore, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that Ext.A12 has to be considered as an exemplar, and the appellant is entitled to have the land value fixed at Rs.2,38,888/- per cent, which will come to Rs.5,90,055/- per Are. Therefore, we find that the judgment of the reference court has to be modified to that extent. 6. As regards the building value is concerned, we find that Ext.B7, the valuation statement produced before the reference court, shows an amount of Rs.3,03,716/- being the value of the building fixed by the executive engineer. The claimant had sought for enhancement of the aforesaid value up to Rs.10 lakhs. In support of his contentions, the claimant took out an Advocate Commissioner who filed a report on 19.6.2020 wherein, the Advocate Commissioner produced a report dated 23.3.2020 issued by the approved valuer. Going by the report, the approved valuer has reported that the revised cost of the building comes to Rs.4,55,574/-. We find from the judgment impugned in the appeal that the reference court though took note of the contention, did not render any finding. It must be noted that the State also did not oppose the report of the Advocate Commissioner and that of the expert valuer. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, we find that the claimant has established the value of the building and is entitled to get an amount of Rs.4,55,574/- as the value of the building. 7. As regards the Cross Objection, the primary objection raised by the State is with regard to the grant of severance compensation. The discussion of the reference court as regards the severance compensation can be seen in paragraph No.14 of the judgment. We deem it appropriate to extract the findings rendered by the reference court regarding severance compensation as follows: “14. Next is the question of injurious affection. It is the case of the claimant that an extent of 20.10 Ares on the south-east of the acquired property was severed, rather got landlocked, due to it’s severance consequent to the acquisition. We deem it appropriate to extract the findings rendered by the reference court regarding severance compensation as follows: “14. Next is the question of injurious affection. It is the case of the claimant that an extent of 20.10 Ares on the south-east of the acquired property was severed, rather got landlocked, due to it’s severance consequent to the acquisition. Subsequently, though not on record, it is disclosed that the claimant exchanged the severed extent in favour of one Little Flower Major Seminary for another property of the latter. The said exchange deed has not been produced. Notwithstanding that, from Ext.C1 report and the evidence of AW2, it is clear that the left-out property would be landlocked. Anyway, the State had not adduced any evidence to show that the left-out property, rather the value and utility of the left-out property, was not injuriously affected by way of acquisition. As per the version of AW1, 20.10 Ares of property lost access to PWD and Looking at Ext.C1(b) which is a sketch prepared by the Village Officer and which was produced by AW2 along with Ext.C1 report and C1(b) rough sketch, it is clear that a portion on the south-east of the acquired property was deprived of the road access. A combined reading of Ext.Cl(a) and Cl(b) sketches would disclose this fact. The said property is almost in a rectangular shape, though not strictly. It situates in sub division No. 61 of Survey No.53. As per Ext.C1(b) sketch, the area is to 21.09 Ares. Anyway, AW1 in his proof affidavit confined his claim to 20.10 Ares only. In paragraph 6 of his proof affidavit, it is stated that only 20.10 Ares lost it’s access towards PWD road and it lies without any free access. Injurious affection at the rate of 75% is claimed by the claimant. One thing cannot be ignored that though the said plot has been deprived of direct road access, it is not a completely useless property. It is a large extent of 20.10 Ares that got severed from the rest. By depriving of the direct road access through the rest of the property, it’s utility and it’s value is diminished to a certain extent. 75% injurious affection is too much to be claimed. This Court is of the view that injurious affection can be granted at a rate of 50% for the extent of 20.10 Ares.” 8. By depriving of the direct road access through the rest of the property, it’s utility and it’s value is diminished to a certain extent. 75% injurious affection is too much to be claimed. This Court is of the view that injurious affection can be granted at a rate of 50% for the extent of 20.10 Ares.” 8. The report of the advocate commissioner filed on 11.10.2019 specifically shows that the land acquired for the purpose of laying down the pipeline for the Water Supply Scheme is only a strip of land. After acquiring the property of the appellant, the State has, in fact, provided a road having direct access to the highway. It is specifically reported in Point No.1 of the report dated 11.10.2019 that after the acquisition, a 3.3-meter tar road was constructed near the land acquired. Still further, in point No.3, it is specifically noticed by the Advocate Commissioner that, from out of the remaining property in possession of the claimant, certain portion has already been sold to Little Flower Major Seminary as per document No.75 of 2015. Along with the report of the Advocate Commissioner a rough sketch has also been appended to. 9. On a cumulative reading of the report of the Advocate Commissioner and also after perusing the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, we are unable to agree with the findings of the reference court. Apparently, after the construction of a 3.3 meter tarred road, direct access to Aluva-Perumbavoor road has been created from the remaining property for which severance compensation is claimed by the appellant. It is further pertinent to note that the State has made available a copy of the document which has been executed by the appellant in favour of the Little Flower Major Seminary in the year 2017. We find that an extent of 8 Ares of land has been sold for a total consideration of Rs.2 Crores. Be that as it may, subsequent transactions may not by itself disqualify the claim for severance compensation and are indicative of the fact that the land left out after acquisition was not rendered worthless. Thus, we are not persuaded to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant for severance compensation in the light of the categoric finding of the Advocate Commissioner and also the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner which is appended to the report. Thus, we are not persuaded to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant for severance compensation in the light of the categoric finding of the Advocate Commissioner and also the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner which is appended to the report. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reference court was not justified in granting severance compensation for the remaining property. 11. As an upshot of these discussions, we are of the view that the appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the market value of the land in question as also the value of the building deserves to be allowed. Hence L.A.A. No.141 of 2021 is allowed. The market value of the land in question is re-fixed at Rs.5,90,055/- per Are. The value of the building is re-fixed at Rs.1,51,858/- [Rs.4,55,574- Rs.3,03,716/- (the amount already granted)]. Similarly, Cross Objection No.150 of 2023 is also allowed. The judgment of the reference court granting severance compensation is set aside. The claimant is also entitled to all statutory benefits flowing out of the re-fixation of the market value together with proportionate cost. Since the claimant has limited his claim for enhancement at Rs.1.5 Lakhs per Are and since we have granted compensation at Rs.5,90,055/- per Are, the claimant has to necessarily pay the deficit court fee. The appellant/claimant is granted one month time for payment of the balance court fee.