(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the claimants in a reference under Section 28A(3). They were awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 485/ - per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer. As they had not sought for reference under Section 18, they filed application under Section 28A based on the award in L.A.R. No. 120/1987. The parties in L.A.R. No. 120/1987 had been awarded only value at the rate of Rs. 466/ - per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer. In L.A.R. No. 120/1987, the Reference Court refixed the value at Rs. 1500/ - per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned judgment has refixed the land value at Rs. 1,300/ - per cent giving reason that unlike the property in LAR No. 120/1987, the property of the appellant does not have direct road access. The reason assigned by the learned Subordinate Judge for reducing the value of the property under acquisition to be given to the appellants is not sound. But on a better reason there is justification for reducing the value. We find that giving proportionate increase to the value awarded to the parties in L.A.R. No. 120/1987 based on the higher value given to the appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer, the value which will become payable to the appellants herein will come to Rs. 1560/ - But, we find that the property involved in this appeal is a large extent. In view of the largeness of the extent proper deductions have to be made in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in LAO & Sub -Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal ( : AIR 1997 SC 2552), Gafar & Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority & anr. ( : 2007 (7) SCC 614) and State of J & K v. Mohammad Mateen Wani ( : AIR 1998 SC 2470). Making such deduction, we refix the value of land under acquisition at Rs. 1350/ - per cent. The appeal will stand allowed. The appellants will be entitled for all statutory benefits admissible under Section 23(2), 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act on the refixed compensation.