IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.04.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL A.S.Nos. 751, 752, 753, 937, 938, 939, 955, 956 of 2001; A.S.Nos.722, 723, 724, 725, 726 of 2004 & A.S.No.7 of 2006 and A.S.No.416 of 2002 and CMP.Nos.1686/2009 in AS.No.751/2001; 1713/2009 in AS.No.752/2001; 1714/2009 in AS.No.753/2001; 1684/2009 in AS.No.937/2001; 1692/2009 in AS.No.955/2001; 1712/2009 in AS.No.956/2001; 1693/2009 in AS.No.722/20004; 1680/2009 in AS.No.723/2004; 1685/2009 in AS.No.724/2004; 1683/2009 in AS.No.725/2004; 1681/2009 in AS.No.726/2004 A.S.Nos. 751,752,753,937,938,939,955,956 of 2001; A.S.Nos.722,723,724,725,726 of 2004 & A.S.No.7 of 2006: 1. The Special Tahsildar [LA], Namakkal. 2. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem. 3. The National Highways Authorities of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways, represented by its Project Director and General Manager (Technical). .. Appellants 1 to 3 in (3rd Appellant impleaded A.S.No.751 to 753, 955 and vide order of Court dt.24.8.06, 956 of 2001, 722 to 726/04 23.12.2005, 19.4.2006, made in C.M.P.Nos.9372/06 to Appellants 1 & 2 in 9375/06, 9377 to 9380/06 A.S.Nos.937 to 939/2001 20405 to 20423 of 2005 & 6084 to 6087 of 2006 & 9395 & 9396 of 2006 Appellants 1 & 3 in A.S.No.7 of 2006 vs. V.Saravanan .. Respondent in AS No.751/2001 Askar Batcha .. Respondent in rep.by Power of Attorney AS No.752/2001 M.Mahalingam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.Jawahar .. Respondent in AS No.753/2001 C.Kumarasamy .. Respondent in AS No.937/2001 R.Raju .. Respondent in AS No.938/2001 P.Loganathan .. Respondent in AS No.939/2001 J.Jeyalakshmi .. Respondent in AS No.955/2001 K.Kanagaraj .. Respondent in AS No.956/2001 R.Murugan 2. Chidambaranathan 3. Sellappan 4. Loganathan 5. Rajathi Annalakshmi Sellammal Subramanian (RR3 to 8 rep by their Power of Attorney Agent R2) (Amended the name of R1 vide order of Court dt.23.4.2009 in C.M.P.No.19163 of 2004) P.Mangani .. Respondent in AS No.723/2004 Tamilarasi .. Respondent in AS No.724/2004 R.Rajendran .. Respondent in AS No.725/2004 R.Ettiappan .. Respondent in AS No.726/2004 R.Kaliyappan .. Respondent in AS No.7/2006 A.S.No.416/2002: S.Jawahar .. Appellant. vs. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Tahsildar (LA), Bye Pass Road, Namakkal. 2. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem-5. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CMP.Nos.1686/2009 in AS.No.751/2001; 1713/2009 in AS.No.752/2001; 1714/2009 in AS.No.753/2001; 1684/2009 in AS.No.937/2001; 1692/2009 in AS.No.955/2001; 1712/2009 in AS.No.956/2001; 1693/2009 in AS.No.722/20004; 1680/2009 in AS.No.723/2004; 1685/2009 in AS.No.724/2004; 1683/2009 in AS.No.725/2004; 1681/2009 in AS.No.726/2004: National Highways Authority of India, represented by its Project Director (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) No.10, Kamadhenu Nagar, Karur-639 001. .. Petitioner/3rd Appellant. vs. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Bye-pass road, Namakkal. 2. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem. .. Respondents/Appellants 1 and 2. 3. V.Saravanan Askar Batcha S.Jawahar C.Kumarasamy R.Raju P.Loganathan J.Jeyalakshmi K.Kanagaraj R.Murugan P.Mangani Tamilarasi R.Rajendran R.Ettiappan R.Kaliyappan .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Appeal Nos. 751,752,753,937,938,939,955,956 of 2001; 722,723,724,725,726 of 2004 & 7 of 2006 filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act against the Common Judgment made in LAOP.Nos.3,4,6,9,10,11,12,13/1996 dated 28.4.2000 and LAOP.Nos.15,11,12,13,14/1997 dated 30.09.2002 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal and LAOP.No.27/2002 dated 02.04.2004 on the file of Fast Track Court No.III, Namakkal. Prayer: A.S.No.416/2002 filed by the Claimant against the decree and Judgment in LAOP.No.6/1996 dated 28.04.2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Namakkal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: Petitions filed under Or.41, Rule 27 CPC praying to receive the documents filed along with the Petitions. For Appellants 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Ravi both the appeals Special G.P. [AS] For 3rd Appellant in : Mr.M.Ravindran, both the appeals Addl. Solicitor General assisted by M/s.P.Wilson Associates For Respondents/ : Mr.S.Silambanan Claimants Senior Counsel Mr.R.Bharanidaran COMMON JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from 0.79 Paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft. in respect of the lands acquired in Vallipuram village, Namakkal Taluk for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town, the Special Tahsildar and National Highways Authorities of India have filed these Appeals. Since, all the appeals arise out of common order and the points for consideration are one and the same, all the Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. Large extent of lands were acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town having length of about 8 Kilometers. An extent of 11.47.0 Hectares of lands in Vallipuram village were acquired. Sec.4(1) notification was approved in G.O.No.1242 P.W. (Highways) H.P.1 dated 24.8.1993 and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 22.9.1993. Sec.4(1) notification was also published in Tamil newspapers viz., "Makkal Kural" and "Kumari Murasu" on 23.9.1993 and the substance of the above notification was also published in the village on 25.10.1993. Sec.5-A enquiry was conducted on 15.04.1994. Sec.6 notification was published in the Government Gazette on 20.07.1994 and in the newspapers on 21.07.1994 and substance of the said notification under Sec.6 of the Act was also published in the locality on 08.08.1994. 3. To determine the market value of the lands under acquisition, sales statistics for the period of three years from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993 have been gathered. Totally 95 sales have been taken place during the said period. Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examined those sale deeds for fixing the market value for the lands under acquisition. Except the lands covered in Sl.No.16 in the sales statistics, the other sales were discarded that they are far away from the lands under acquisition or that the rates do not reflect the prevailing rate of lands under acquisition. Under sale deed [Sl.No.16] dated 08.06.1991 [Document No.829] an extent of 1.27.5 Hectares (or) 3.15 acres comprised in Dry S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B of Vallipuram village has been sold for Rs.75,000/- i.e. per Hectare Rs.58,823/- i.e. Rs.23,814/- per acre. LAO was of the view that S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B is identical to the Manavari Dry lands under acquisition. Hence, the above sale which took place in S.Nos.277/3A1, 3B, 5A and 5B has been taken as basis for fixing the market value for the Manavari Dry lands under acquisition. 4. In so far as irrigated Dry lands, in Serial No.27 - an extent of 1.21.5 Hectares (or) 3.01½ acres comprised in S.No.254/3, 6, 8A of Vallipuram village has been sold for Rs.75,000/- under Document No.949 dated 28.06.1991 which means Rs.61,475/- per Hectare (or) Rs.24,888/- per acre. LAO was of the view that S.F.Nos.254/3, 6, 8A and the Dry lands under acquisition are identical in all respects and therefore, the above sale which took place on 28.6.1991 [Document No.949] has been taken for fixing the market value for the irrigated Dry lands under acquisition. Fixing the above value for Manavari and irrigated Dry lands, Award No.3/1995 was passed ordering 30% solatium, 12% additional market value from 25.10.1983 to 05.10.1995. LAO has also fixed appropriate value for the trees in the acquired lands. 5. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act were made. References were taken on file as LAOP Nos.3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13/1996 and 11, 12, 13, 14, 15/1997 and 27/2002. In the Reference Court, LAOP.Nos.3 to 6, 9 to 13/1996 were taken up together and disposed on 28.04.2000 as one Batch. LAOP.Nos.15, 11 to 14/1997 were taken up together and disposed on 30.09.2002 as one Batch. Adopting the same rate, LAOP.No.27/2002 was disposed on 02.04.2004 separately. Before the Reference Court, the Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition] and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Salem alone were Respondents. The Beneficiary/Requisitioning Body for which the lands were acquired viz., National Highways Authorities of India [NHAI] was not made as a party in the LAOPs. 6. In the Reference Court, in LAOP.No.3/1996 – Batch, respective Claimants were examined as CWs.1 to 7 and one Manohar, witness to Ex.C4-sale agreement, one Mahalingam, power agent of Askar Basha, one Seerangan, witness to Ex.C1-sale deed and one Balasubramaniam, witness to Ex.C7 were examined as CWs.8 to 11 respectively. Exs.C1 to C7 were marked. No oral evidence on the side of the Respondents and no document was marked on the side of Respondents. Similarly, in LAOP.Nos.15/1997 Batch, Claimant Ettigan [LAOP.No.15/1997] was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examined as CW1 and one Thangam was examined as CW2. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. No oral evidence on the side of Respondents and no document was marked. Like wise, in LAOP.No.27/2002, Claimant- Kaliappan was examined as CW1. Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.15/1997-Batch were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 respectively. On the side of Respondents, one Venkatesan, the Special Tahsildar [LA] was examined as RW1. Exs.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of Respondents. 7. In LAOP.No.3/1996 Batch, Reference Court has taken Ex.C1- sale deed [19.1.1993] in which an extent of 500 sq. ft. in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold for Rs.50,000/- by one Saravanan and others infavour of Jawahar and fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Reference Court has also referred to Ex.C5-sale deed [25.8.1993] in which 600 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 was sold for Rs.45,000/- by Ramachandran, Power of Attorney of one Doss infavour of one Marimuthu. After taking Ex.C1-sale deed for fixing the market value, Reference Court has passed:- (i) enhancement of compensation from 0.79 Paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft.; (ii) 12% additional market value from 25.10.1993 to 05.10.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation. 8. In LAOP.Nos.15/1997 Batch and LAOP.No.27/2002, applying the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.3/1996 Batch, Reference Court has ordered:- (i) enhancement of compensation from 0.79 paise to Rs.100/- per sq. ft.; (ii) 12% additional market value from 25.10.1993 to 05.10.1995; (iii) 30% solatium on the enhanced market value; (iv) interest at the rate of 9% for one year period from the date of taking possession; and (v) interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation. 9. Challenging the enhancement of compensation, the LAO/Special Tahsildar [LA] and the Divisional Engineer, National Highways [not National Highways Authorities of India] have preferred these Appeals. In the Appeals, on Petitions filed by the National Highways Authorities of India, Requisitioning body [National Highways Authorities of India] was impleaded as 3rd Appellant subsequently. 10. Main contention of learned Additional Solicitor General is that to determine just and proper compensation the Beneficiary – National Highways Authorities of India ought to have been made as a party. It was further submitted that though the Divisional Engineer, National Highways was one of the Respondent in the LAOPs, there was no representation for National Highways Authorities of India. Main plank of argument of the Appellants is that without proper and effective representation of NHAI, the compensation amount was enhanced prejudicially affecting the interest of National Highways https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authorities of India/Union of India which has to bear the heavy compensation. 11. Drawing our attention to the additional documents filed in the C.M.Ps., Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that even from 1991, there were protests and demonstrations in and around Namakkal for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town and that after knowing about the scheme for formation of bye-pass road, land owners have brought into existence the sale deeds boosting the land value and the considerations stated in Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds are fancy value to make a boosted claim for compensation. Taking us through the sales statistics and also the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that there was only slow increase in price of the lands and the sudden spurt in the value of the land was boosted as it was after the grant of administrative sanction for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town. 12. Learned Additional Solicitor General further argued that if the additional documents are received in evidence, it would be evident that Exs.C3 and C2-sale deeds were brought into existence boosting the value by Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan. It was further argued that when large extent of land is acquired, there cannot be determination of market value on square feet basis and the enhancement of compensation at Rs.75/- per sq. ft. is not supported by any objective assessment. It was also urged that for formation of highways, National Highways Authorities of India has spent huge amount for laying road and developing it and while so, Reference Court erred in not making any deduction for development charges. 13. We have also heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader [AS] appearing for the Appellants 1 and 2 who submitted that LAO has taken the relevant sale deed which is prior to Sec.4(1) notification and has rightly fixed the market value at 0.79 Paise per sq. ft. and while so, Court below erred in relying upon Ex.C1-sale deed without any basis. In support of his contention, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance upon (1997) 9 SCC 330 [P.Rajan and another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and another] and AIR 1995 SC 1004 [M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd., v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition], Neyvely and others]. Placing reliance upon (1996) 6 SCC 41 [Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others], the learned Special Government Pleader contended that it is the bounden duty of the Court to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market and the value fixed by the Reference Court is exorbitant. 14. Laying emphasis upon Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds, Mr.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Claimants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that under Exs.C1-sale deed, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. and Reference Court has rightly taken the market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. and even in January 1993, it was sold for Rs.100/- per sq. ft. It was further argued that merely because some persons were agitating for forming bye-pass road, it cannot be the ground to hold that the value was boosted in Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds. It was contended that Ex.C5-sale deed is said to have been preceded by an agreement - Ex.C4 dated 22.12.1992 under which Plot No.83 comprised in S.F.Nos.251.2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 measuring an extent of 600 sq. ft. was agreed to be sold for Rs.45,500/-. Stand of Respondents-Claimants is that Ex.C5-sale deed was preceded by an agreement which lends assurance to Ex.C5-sale deed. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the potential value of the land has to be kept in view and no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Appellants and the acquired lands are in the midst of developed area and the value prior to Sec.4(1) notification was rightly taken into consideration by the Reference Court. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the lands situated nearby the acquired lands were already purchased by Ashok Leyland Company and therefore, the market value fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon 1985 ALL. LJ 1324 [State of UP v. Afazulul Haq]; 98 LW 725 [Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh]; AIR 1992 SC 2298 [Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality]; (1995) 2 SCC 305 [P.Ram Reddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others]; 1996 LACC 231 [Puvvada Nageswara Rao and others v. Land Acquisition Officer]; 2001- 1-LW 120 [Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Sipcot, Pudukottai v. RM.Ramasamy and 3 others]; (2001) 7 SCC 211 [Sunder v. Union of India]; 2003-4-LW 137 [Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur v. N.Swaminathan]; (2004) 2 SCC 184 [H.P.Housing Board v. Bhyarat S.Negi and others]; (2004) 10 SCC 640 [V.Subrahmanya Rao v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer]; 2004-2-LW 673 [The Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare Sivagangai v. Muthu Konar]; 2005 (1) LACC 413 [Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Munikrishna Reddy]; (2005) 12 SCC 59 [Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India] and 2006-1-LW 394 [Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram Thakkalai village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District v. R.S.Raveendran]. 15. We have carefully examined the submissions of learned Additional Solicitor General and learned Special Government Pleader and also learned Senior Counsel for Claimants. 16. Lands measuring 11.47.0 Hectares in Vallipuram village in various sub-divisions comprised in S.F.Nos.123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 233, 235 237, 244, 245, 251, 253, 254 and 255 have been acquired for formation of bye-pass road to Namakkal town. Vallipuram is a ryotwari village. To determine the market value of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the lands under acquisition, sale statistics for the period of three years from 25.10.1990 to 24.10.1993 were gathered and there were totally 95 sales during the said period in the village. Upon careful analysis of the said sales, it is seen that under Sl.No.5 – sale deed dated 12.03.1991 an extent of 1258 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A1 and 2B1 was sold by Mahalingam and others to one Viswanath for Rs.1000/- i.e. 0.79 Paise per sq. ft. Analysis of various sale deeds contained in the sales statistics would show that there was only slow increase in the value of the lands as is seen from the following:- Sl.N o Doc. No. and Date S.F.No. Exten t sold in sq.ft . Name of Vendor Name of Vendee Sold at Rs. Rate per Sq. Ft. Rs. 5 369 12.03.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1258 sq. ft. Mahalingam and others Viswanath 1000/- 0.79 Paise 6 371 12.03.1991 251/2A1, 2B2 3500 sq.ft. Kaliammal and others Jeganathan 12,000/ - 3.43 8 625 25.04.191 251/2A1, 2B1, 2B2 3000 sq.ft. Mayilvaganan and others Kambalathan Chettiar 10,000/ - 3.33 10 677 03.05.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1600 sq.ft. Mahalingam and others Aushgar Basha 5600/- 3.50 11 713 08.05.1991 251/2A1, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft. Mayilvaganan and others Raju 5000/- 3.33 19 883 14.06.1991 251/2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft. Mahalingam Saravanan 6000/- 4.00 32 1005 12.07.1991 251/2A2, 2B1, 2B2, 2A2 1475 sq.ft. Mahalingam Gnanasekaran 15,000/ - 10.16 36 1205 05.09.1991 251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft. Mayilvaganan Subramanian 15,000/ - 10.00 48 1507 30.10.1991 251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 412½ sq.ft. Mahalingam and others Saravanan 6,200/- 15.05 65 898 15.06.1992 251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 1500 sq.ft. Mayilvaganan and others Kumarasamy 22,500/ - 15.00 71 1554 21.10.1992 251/2A2, 2B2 1500 sq.ft. Mayilvaganan Kanagaraj 30,000/ - 20.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By analysis of the above sales, it is clear that there was only very slow increase in the value of the lands. Most of the sale transactions pertaining to house sites were sold only by Claimants- Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan and rest of the transactions were predominantly of agricultural lands. 17. Serial No.76 of sales statistics [Ex.C1] is the sale deed dated 19.1.1993 [registered on 20.1.1993] in which an extent of 500 sq. ft. comprised in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold by Saravanan and others to one Jawahar [Claimant in LAOP.No.6/1996] for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Like wise, Serial No.93 [Ex.C5] is the sale deed dated 25.8.1993 [registered on 27.8.1993] in which an extent of 600 sq. ft. was sold by Ramachandran infavour of Marimuthu for Rs.45,000/- i.e. Rs.75/- per sq. ft. Leaving all the documents for a period of three years where the land value was slowly increasing ranging from Rs.3/- to Rs.20/-, curiously the Reference Court has taken Ex.C1-sale deed as basis for fixing the market value. For taking Ex.C1-sale deed, Reference Court has observed that Ex.C1 is prior to Sec.4(1) notification and therefore, Ex.C1 is taken as basis for fixing the market value. The value fixed by the Court is not based on any objective assessment. 18. As pointed out earlier, by analysis of sales statistics, one Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan were selling small extent of house sites and most of the sale transactions in the sales statistics are sale deeds executed by the said Mahalingam and Mayilvaganan. As seen from Serial No.19, Respondent-Claimant Saravanan purchased 1500 sq. ft. in S.F.No.251/2A1, 2B1 from Mahalingam under Document No.883 [14.6.1991] for Rs.6000/- i.e. Rs.4/- per sq. ft. The said Respondent-Claimant Saravanan sold 500 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 to Jawahar for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Like wise, under Ex.C5, an extent of 600 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A2, 2B2, 2A1, 2B1 was sold for Rs.45,000/- i.e. Rs.75/- per sq. ft. 19. For quite some time, from May 1991 there was a demand for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town. From one of the pamphlets filed by National Highways Authorities of India as additional documents, it is seen that from 1991, there were protests and demonstrations in and around Namakkal for forming bye-pass road to Namakkal town. Additional documents were also produced to show that administrative sanction [C.No.45/93/JDO dated 09.01.1993] was granted for the estimate of Rs.83.11 lakhs for formation of Namakkal bye-pass road. When the above Proceedings of administrative sanction was issued in January 1993 giving details of extent of lands to be acquired in various villages, by the said Proceedings dated 09.01.1993 the project has taken final shape. In such circumstances under Serial No.76, a small extent of 500 sq. ft. in S.F.Nos.251/2A1, 2B1, 2A2, 2B2 was sold by one Saravanan and others infavour of Jawahar under Ex.C1 sale deed dated 19.1.1993 for Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. As rightly contended by Mr.M.Ravindran, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional Solicitor General, serious doubts arise as to genuineness of the transaction of Exs.C1 and C5-sale deeds. Reference Court appears to have fixed the value unmindful of fact that there was long standing agitation to form bye-pass road from 1991. 20. Laying emphasis upon the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, the learned Senior Counsel contended that Ashok Leyland Company and TVS Group have purchased the property in S.F.Nos.276, 277 and 278, the value of the lands nearby the acquired lands has gone up and Reference Court has rightly fixed the value of the land at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. 21. There is no force in the contention that the value of the land had substantially gone up after Ashok Leyland Company has purchased the property. In the sales statistics, Serial Nos.80 to 86 are the sale deeds dated 29.03.1993 under which an extent of land ranging from 4.40 acres to 2.61 acres was sold by Namakkal Auto Nagar Association to Ashok leyland Company and as per the said sale deeds, rate per Hectare is Rs.1,11,000/-. The details of lands sold to Ashok Leyland Company are as under:- Sl.No Doc. No. and Date S.No. Extent sold in acres Name of Vendor Name of Vendee Sold at Rs. Rate per Hectare Rs. 80 544 29.03.1993 274/7, 3, 2C,9 275/1,2 276/13B 4.40 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,97,838/ - 1,10,000/ - 81 545 29.03.1993 276/11, 12A 277/13B 4.35 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,95,624/ - [After enquiry value was fixed at 2,36,260/ - 1,11,000/ - 82 546 29.03.1993 276/2B, 13A 277/3B 3.63 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,63,391/ - 1,11,000/ - 83 547 29.03.1993 277/1, 2, 5A & 5B 3.51 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,57,829/ - 1,11,000/ - 84 548 29.03.1993 278/2 293/2 3.98 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,78,947/ - 1,11,000/ - 85 549 29.03.1993 278/3 2.61 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,17,261/ - 1,11,000/ - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No Doc. No. and Date S.No. Extent sold in acres Name of Vendor Name of Vendee Sold at Rs. Rate per Hectare Rs. 86 550 29.03.1993 278/3 2.62 Namakkal Auto Nagar Association Ashok Leyland Company 1,17,819/ - 1,11,000/ - 22. The sale deed [Document No.545 dated 29.03.1993] presented for registration by Ashok Leyland Company was not registered on the ground that it was undervalued. After enquiry, the land value was fixed at Rs.2,36,260/- i.e. Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and deficit stamp of Rs.4149/- and registration fee of Rs.345/- were collected from Ashok Leyland Company. So even after enquiry for under valuation, the value fixed was only Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and not a higher value as contended by the Claimants. 23. By analysis of the sale deeds infavour of Ashok Leyland Company, three things are emerge:- ●Large extent of lands were sold on the basis of value per Acre. ●Per Hectare value is Rs.1,11,000/- that means Rs.44,939/-