IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.03.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.Nos. 735 to 747 of 2008 and A.S.Nos.1097 to 1112 of 2007 The Special Tahsildar (LA), SIPCOT, Unit VII, Sriperumbudur. ... Appellant in all appeals. vs. N.Sundaram ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.735/2008 S.Manickam ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.736/2008 Radha Bai ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.737/2008 R.Ranga Bashiam ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.738/2008 V.Nagalakshmi ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.739/2008 Kumar ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.740/2008 Johnsi Rani ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.741/2008 Asha ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.742/2008 P.Balaraman ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.743/2008 R.Ganesh ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.744/2008 E.Caroline ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.745/2008 Sudhanair ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.746/2008 Arivudainambi ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.747/2008 B.Kasthuri ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1097/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ B.Shenbagavalli ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1098/2007 Paranthaman ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1099/2007 Rajammal Rajasekaran Rukmani Jothi S.Geetha ... 1 to 5 Respondents in A.S.No.1100/2007 Jayaraman ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1101/2007 R.Sobhana ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1102/2007 E.Suresh ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1103/2007 D.Ramalingam ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1104/2007 M.Deivanai ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1105/2007 N.Krishnamurthy ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1106/2007 Sundaramoorthy ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1107/2007 Sheela ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1108/2007 Sujatha ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1109/2007 Premchand Narasimha Rao ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1110/2007 Raghupathi ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1111/2007 Munusamy ... 1st Respondent in A.S.No.1112/2007 The Managing Director, SIPCOT, Egmore, Chennai-8. ... 2nd Respondent in all the appeals except A.S.No.1100/2007 & 6th Respondent in A.S.No.1100/2007. Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Common Judgment made in LAOP.Nos.889/03, 890/03, 896/03, 897/03, 898/03, 899/03, 900/03 901/03, 902/03, 903/03, 904/03, 905/03, 906/03, 31/03, 32/03, 33/03, 125/03, 271/03, 881/03, 882/03, 883/03, 884/03, 885/03, 886/03, 887/03, 888/03, 246/04, 265/04, 671/04 a Batch of cases dated 10.04.2006 respectively on the file of Sub-Court,Tiruvallur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi in all appeals Special Government Pleader [AS] For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.S.Vijay Anand in all appeals For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Devaraj in all appeals COMMON JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.300/- per cent to Rs.3500/- per cent in respect of the lands acquired in Araneri village, Sriperumbudur Taluk for setting up an industrial complex by State Industries promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT], the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Unit-VII has filed these Appeals. Since, all the Appeals arise out of common Judgment, all the Appeals were taken up together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeals are as follows:- The SIPCOT with an intent to fill up and boost the industrial activity in Tamil Nadu particularly near Chennai identified an extent of 999.42.5 Hectares of Patta and Poramboke lands in Mambakkam, Thirumangalam, Sirumangadu and Santhavelur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District to locate an industrial complex and solicited the Government to accord sanction for the establishment of the same. The Government considered the proposal of SIPCOT, with several multinational companies, Non-resident Indians and local entrepreneurs evincing keen interest in Tamil Nadu, especially near Chennai and accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.61, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 for the acquisition of Patta lands measuring 2310.73 acres covering nine villages, invoking urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the Government Orders, SIPCOT has furnished the required requisition to the District Collector, Kancheepuram District. 3. By the Proceedings in Rc.No.159/96 B3 dated 03.09.1997, the District Revenue Officer [LA], SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur issued orders allocating an extent of 2310.73 acres to be acquired. Accordingly, an extent of 62.15.5 Hectares in Pondur "A" village; 47.94.5 Hectares in Araneri village and 15.73.0 Hectares in Thirumangalam village totalling 125.83.0 Hectares were allotted to proceed with the acquisition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram District to proceed with the acquisition invoking the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(1) notification was published on 13.3.1998 and also duly published in the newspaper. As the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act invoking Sec.17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Sec.5-A was dispensed with and Sec.6 declaration was published on 05.06.1998. 5. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) i.e. 13.03.1998, LAO collected sales statistics for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. There are 542 sales during the said period. Out of the said sale deeds, sale in respect of the Dry land in S.No.61 measuring an extent of 08.84.5 Hectares [Document No.4978 dated 01.09.1997] was taken as data sale deed and LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.300/- per cent with 30% solatium. LAO has also ordered 12% additional market value for 833 days from 13.3.1998 to 22.6.2000 and passed the Award. 6. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 of the Act was made. In the Reference Court, Claimant Paranthaman [Claimant in LAOP.No.33/2003] was examined as CW1. Exs.C1 to C18 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Referring Officer, one Varalakshmi, Special Tahsildar [LA] was examined as RW1. On the side of Beneficiary, one Sridharan, Manager [Legal], SIPCOT was examined as RW2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 7. Based upon Exs.C1 to C11-sale deeds, Reference Court held that market value of the acquired lands would fetch more value. Reference Court has not given any specific value, but on the basis of Exs.C1 to C11 and Exs.C13 and C14, took the view that the lands would fetch more value. Reference Court further held that though 33 – 1/3% is the normal deduction, the same is not a rigid formula and deduction purely depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Referring to AIR 2002 SC 1558 [Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib], Reference Court has deducted 20% for development charges and fixed the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. After giving 20% deduction, Reference Court has passed:- (i) Value of one cent at the rate of Rs.300/- fixed by the Referring Officer was enhanced to Rs.3500/- per cent; (ii) 12% additional amount on the enhanced compensation from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking possession; (iii) 30% of solatium on the enhanced compensation; (iv) 9% interest for one year from the date of possession; (v) 15% interest per annum from the date of possession till the date of deposit of entire amount; and (vi) deduction of the amount of compensation already received by the Claimants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Details of the Appeals, LAOP Nos., Survey Numbers of the lands acquired and the extent are as under:- A.S.No. L.A.O.P.No. Survey Number Extent Sq. mt. / Hec. 735/2008 889/2003 61/2A11 00200 sq. mtr. 736/2008 890/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 737/2008 896/2003 61/20 00250 sq. mtr. 738/2008 897/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 739/2008 898/2003 61/2A1A 00230 sq. mtr. 740/2008 899/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 741/2008 900/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 742/2008 901/2003 61/2A17 00250 sq. mtr. 743/2008 902/2003 61/2A1A 00253 sq. mtr. 744/2008 903/2003 61/2A13 00200 sq. mtr. 745/2008 904/2003 61/2A8 00200 sq. mtr. 746/2008 905/2003 61/17 00200 sq. mtr. 747/2008 906/2003 61/2A9 00200 sq. mtr. 1097/2007 31/2003 61/2A3 0.02.0 Hec. 1098/2007 32/2003 61/2A5 0.02.0 Hec. 1099/2007 33/2003 80/1A 0.11.0 Hec. 1100/2007 125/2003 79/1 & 79/2 0.63.0 Hec. 1101/2007 271/2003 1/1A & 1/1B 0.54.0 Hec. 1102/2007 881/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 1103/2007 882/2003 61/2A1A 00222 sq. mtr. 1104/2007 883/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 1105/2007 884/2003 61/2A1A 00350 sq. mtr. 1106/2007 885/2003 61/2A1A 00223 sq. mtr. 1107/2007 886/2003 61/2A4 00200 sq. mtr. 1108/2007 887/2003 61/2A1A & 61/15 00467 sq. mtr. 1109/2007 888/2003 61/18 00200 sq. mtr. 1110/2007 246/2004 61/2A1A 00200 sq. mtr. 1111/2007 265/2004 61/9 00155 sq. mtr. 1112/2007 671/2004 22 0.47.5 Hec. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Challenging the enhancement of compensation, Mr.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Appellant-Referring Officer submitted that LAO has taken the relevant sale deed pertaining to S.No.61 which is of the same taram and quality and has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.300/- per cent and while so, the Reference Court erred in relying Exs.C1 to C11 sale deeds and enhancing the compensation at Rs.3500/- per cent. It was further submitted that the documents filed by the Claimants – Exs.C1 to C11 do not refer to Araneri village but relate to Pondur and Mambakkam villages and Reference Court erred in taking those sale deeds with reference to some other village. It was further argued that in his evidence, RW2 has stated that huge amount was spent for development and while so, Reference Court erred in deducting only 20% for development charges. Drawing our attention to an unreported decision in A.S.Nos.80 to 104 of 2006 dated 08.12.2009 [F.M.I.K.,J & T.S.S.,J], learned Special Government Pleader contended that in similar matters where the lands were acquired in Santhavelur for SIPCOT, the Division Bench has given 53% deduction for development charges and the same has to be adopted for development charges in these cases. 10. Mr.Devaraj, learned counsel for 2nd Respondent-SIPCOT contended that the deduction made by the Reference Court is very low. Drawing our attention to the evidence of RW2, it was contended that huge amount was spent for developing the lands and the same was not kept in view by the Reference Court. Reiterating the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader, learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent-SIPCOT also urged us to deduct 53% for development charges. 11. Drawing our attention to Exs.C1 to C11 sale deeds and sketch [Ex.R1], Mr.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the villages Mambakkam and Pondur are situated adjacent to Araneri village and Reference Court has rightly taken Exs.C1 to C11 as basis for arriving the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. It was further argued that Araneri village being located near Chennai-Bangalore National Highways, it would fetch higher value. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the oral evidence of RW2 that huge amount was spent for development remains uncorroborated and while so, 20% deduction made by the Reference Court is very reasonable. It was further argued that Exs.C1 to C11 documents are much prior to Sec.4 (1) notification and if 10% annual increase is given to the value of the lands every year, the market value would be very much higher and the market value arrived at by the Reference Court is reasonable warranting no interference. 12. As pointed out earlier, 542 sales were collected for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. Out of the said sales, the sale in respect of house sites were mentioned in Annexure "A" and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land sales were mentioned in Annexure "B". Annexure "A" sales which are house site sales were all discarded by the LAO from consideration. 325 sales found in Annexure "B" were discussed and the sale transaction were categorised under various heads viz., (i) wet land sales; (ii) house site sales; (iii) boosted sale value; (iv) difference of classification; (v) farm layout; (vi) combined sale; (vii) below the market value; (viii) far away sale; and (ix) poramboke land. 13. In so far as Dry lands, LAO took the view that real estate owners have boosted the value for forming plots. LAO has pointed out that in Araneri village, the Dry lands were sold between Rs.36/- to Rs.339/- per cent. Under document No.4978 dated 01.09.1997, an extent of 08.84.5 Hectares in S.No.61 was sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per cent. The said sale deed dated 01.09.1997 was taken as data sale deed. 14. Principles for determination of market value:- For determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, market value therefor is to be ascertained. The expression 'market value' has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in several cases. Market value is the price that the willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities. In considering the 'market value' the guiding factor would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the area of the land, nature thereof and advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property. That apart, potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. 15. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of market value and the amount of compensation. The positive as well as negative factors and potentiality of the land to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value. In (2005) 4 SCC 789 [Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat], the Supreme Court held as under:- "18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:- Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road distance (ii) situation in the interior at a from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots,waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price. 16. In (2008) 2 SCC 568 [Atma Singh v. State of Haryana], the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that in considering the market value, the guiding factor would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor and willing purchaser and not an anxious dealing at arms length. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. In (2009) 1 SCALE 545 [Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb], the positive as well as negative factors indicated in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor's case (supra) as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus: "11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land. 12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom. 13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra)." 18. Case of Appellant is that smaller extent of land was sold as plot/house site and the same cannot be taken as comparable instances. By perusal of Award, an extent of 08.84.5 Hectares comprised in Dry S.No.61 was sold for Rs.300/- per cent. LAO took the view that the data land and the acquired lands are of the same taram and quality. 19. Ex.R1 is the Eye valuation sketch. By perusal of Ex.R1, we find that S.No.61 is next adjacent on the eastern side of the acquired lands. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that S.No.61 is just https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ near to the drainage kuttai [like a Pond] and far interior. In this regard, the evidence of CW1 reads as under:- @ Mundhp Mh;$pj epy';fSf;F m';fho tpiy jPh;khdpf;f epy vLg;g[ jdpjhrpy;jhh; Mundhp RLfhL mUfhikapy; fpuhk fHpt[ ePh; nj';Fk; xU nkhrkhd kz; jd;ik bfhz;l Fl;ilahf cs;s rh;nt vz;/61 rk;ge;jg;gl;l epyj;ij khjphp epykhf vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;L mjd; mog;gilapy; Mundhp Mh;$pj epy';fSf;F cs;sJ epy chpikahsh;fSf;F mspf;fg;gl;l xU bghpa mePjpahFk;/@ Existence of kuttai is also evident from Ex.R1. According to the Appellant, the village Mambakkam is situated on the north-western side and village Pondur is also situated on the northern side of the acquired lands in Araneri village and the acquired lands are situated about 1½ K.M. from National Highways and the market value fixed by the LAO is very reasonable. 20. In the Award, LAO has observed that even in the sales statistics, the lands were sold for higher value and LAO has discarded those sale deeds in which Dry lands were sold for higher value on the ground that Dry lands were purchased by the real estate owners on boosted value for forming plots and that the boosted value cannot be taken as basis for fixing the market value. It is seen from the evidence that nearby area of acquired lands in Araneri village was sold as house plots. Opinion of LAO that the Dry lands were purchased by the real estate owners on boosted value for forming plots and the value was boosted is not convincing. 21. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that the acquired lands are situated near Chennai-Bangalore National Highways. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that even in 1998, M/s.Proxy Air Private Limited has taken the nearby lands on long term lease of Rs.14,000/- per cent. In his evidence CW1 has stated that the land has got potential for development and that it has got bus facilities. CW1 has further stated that the bus proceeding from Poonamallee to Sunguvarchatram would proceed via Araneri. In this regard, evidence of CW1 reads as under:- @bghJthf khk;ghf;fk;. nghe;J}h;. Mundhp epy';fis gphpj;J ghh;f;f Koahj mstpw;F xnu gFjpia nrh;e;j epy';fs; MFk;/ nkYk; Vrpad; bgapz;l; Kjyhd gj;J fk;bgdpfs; Mundhp. nghe;J}h; Mh;$pj epy';fspy; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sd/ ///////// nkYk; Mundhp gFjpia nrh;e;j Mh;$pj epy';fs; 1998?y; xU brz;l; epyk; U:gha; 14.000-? tPjk; M/s.Proxy Air Private Limited Kjyhd fk;bgdpfSf;F ePz;l fhy Fj;jif mog;gilapy; tpw;gid bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mnj tpiyf;F jhd; nghe;J}h; kw;Wk; khk;ghf;fj;ij nrh;e;j brapd;l; nfhigd; fz;zho. Vrpad; bgapz;l; nghd;w kpf bghpa fk;bgdpfSf;Fk; tpw;gid bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/@ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22. To substantiate their claim that nearby lands are developed, Claimants have produced Ex.C13 in which layout was formed in S.Nos.61/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of Araneri village. From Ex.C14, it is seen that in S.Nos.275, 276, 278 and 282 of Araneri village layout was formed. The oral evidence of CW1 and documentary evidence from Exs.C13 and C14 would establish that the surrounding area is developed and the acquired lands having potential for future development. The acquired lands being situated about 1 – 1½ K.M. from Chennai-Bangalore National Highway, have great potential for future development. 23. In his evidence, RW1 has also admitted that the acquired lands are situated at about 1½ K.M. from Chennai-Bangalore National Highway. RW1 has also admitted that factories and companies have come up in the surrounding area of the acquired lands in Araneri village. In his evidence, RW1 has stated @38 tHf;FfSk; rh;nt vz;fs; Fiwe;j msnt cs;s tPl;Lkidfs; bfhz;l epy vLg;g[ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ epy Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epy';fs; Fiwe;j brz;oy;jhd; Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyk; rJu moia rJu kPl;luhf;fp ec;&l<L bfhLj;njhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ //////////// njrpa beL";rhiyapypUe;J Mh;$pjk; bra;ag;gl;l epyk; Rkhh; 1 fp/kP/ J}ukpUf;Fk;/ Mh;$pjk; ½ bra;ag;gl;l njrpa beL";rhiyapypUe;J khk;ghf;fk; fpuhkk; 5 fp/kP/ J}ukpUf;Fk;/ Mundhp Mh;$pj epyj;jpw;F khk;ghf;f Mh;$pj epyj;jpw;F fpHf;Fg;gf;fKk;. nkw;Fgf;fk; nghe;J}h; Mh;$pj epyKk;. bjw;Fg;g[wj;jpy; Mundhp fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s Mh;$pj epy';fshFk;/ khk;ghf;fk;. Mundhp. nghe;J}h; fk;bgdpfs; fl;lg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ////// tpw;wpUf;Fk; epy';fs; midj;jk; Mh;$pj epyj;jpw;F cl;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,itfs; njrpa beL";rhiyf;F 1 fp/kP/ bjhiytpy; cs;sJ ½ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ 26/6/98y; 4(1) mwptpf;if btspaplg;gl;lJ/ nfhhpf;ifjhuh;fs; khjphpf;fhf Vw;fdnt tpw;fg;gl;l epy';fs; rp1 Kjy; rp11 Koa Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; v';fs; epyMh;$pj mwpf;if 4(1) Kd;dpl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ rp1 Mtzk; 48 brz;l; kw;witfs; tPl;L kidfs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ///////// Mundhp fpuhkj;jpy; 542 tpw;gid g[s;spfis nrfhpj;J me;j gFjpapy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l xU tUlj;jpw;Fz;lhd Mtz';fs; Kiwna 8/3/96 Kjy; 9/3/98 tiu cs;s hp$p!;ouhh; mYtyfj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l Mtz';fis khjphp Mtz';fshf vLj;Jf;bfhz;L v';fshy; bghJthf epuhfhpj;jJ nghf g[";ir. e";ir. khdhthp epuhfhpj;jJ nghf kPjp cs;s epy';fis khjphp epy';fshf itj;J me;j Mtz';fspy; kpf Fiwthf tpw;fg;gl;l epyj;ij khjphp epykhf vLj;Jf;bfhz;L xU brz;l; U:/300-? tPjk; Vw;fdnt nfhhpf;ifjhuh;fSf;F tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/@ Thus from the oral evidence of RW1, it is clearly brought out that factories and companies have come up and nearby area are developed. Admittedly, acquired lands are situated nearby National Highways having good access to main roads have got great potential for development. 24. Coming to the documentary evidence, the Claimants have produced Exs.C1 to C11. The details of Exs.C1 to C11 are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exhibits No. S.No. and Extent Sale Value in Rupees Per cent/sq.ft. value in Rupees Ex.C1 dt. 11.04.1997 S.No.9/1D 0.48 cent Pondur village Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C2 dt.30.09.1997 S.No.533/5A4 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.21,600/- Rs.5244/- per cent Ex.C3 dt.18.12.1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C4 dt.18.12.1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C5 dt. 16.07.1997 S.No.535/5B 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.18,000/- Rs.4360/- per cent Ex.C6 dt.11.10.1996 S.No.165/1 0.62 cents Mambakkam village Rs.3,72,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C7 dt.11.10.1996 S.No.165/1 82.5 cents Mambakkam village Rs.4,95,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C8 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 0.10 cents Mambakkam village Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent Ex.C9 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 0.10 cents Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Exhibits No. S.No. and Extent Sale Value in Rupees Per cent/sq.ft. value in Rupees Ex.C10 dt. 18.12.1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C11 dt. 26.05.1997 S.No.533/5A & 6 1900 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.21,600/- Rs.5244/- per cent