IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN A.S.Nos.759 to 764 of 1999, A.S.No.325 of 2000, A.S.Nos.170,618,721,813,820,821 & 822 of 2003 A.S.Nos.153 & 871 of 2006, A.S.No.399 of 2007 A.S.No.756 of 2008, 136 to 141 of 2001 and Cross Objection Nos.57 of 2003 in A.S.No.762 of 1999 and 31 of 2001 in A.S.No.325 of 2000 The Special Tahsildar Neighbourhood Scheme Erode Erode District ... Appellant in AS.Nos.759 to 764/99, 325/00, 170/03, 618/03, 721/03, 813/03, 820/03, 821/03, 822/03, 871/06 & 399/07 ...1st respondent in AS.No.756/08, 136 to 141/01, Cross objections No.57/03, 756/08 Cross Objection No.31/01, 153/06 K. N. Arumugham ...Appellant in AS.No.756/08 (Claimant) 1. Ramayammal 2. Poosappan (Died) 3. Jayaraman 4. M. Rukumani 5. M. Rathinasamy 6. Vedhanayaki ...Respondents 1 to 6 in AS.759/99 (Claimants 1 to 3, 5 to 7) 1. Ramayammal 2. Poosappan (Died) 3. Jayaraman Lakshmi (Died) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.M. Rukumani 5.M. Rathinasamy 6.Vedhanayaki 7.Janaki 8.Punitha 9.Saravanan ...Appellants 1 to 9 in AS.137/01 (Claimants) Respondents 7 to 9 brought an record as LRs of the 2nd respondent by order dated 31.7.2007 in CMP.11513/01 The Executive Engineer and ..7th Respondent in AS.Nos. Administrative Officer, 759 and 760/1999 Erode Housing Unit, 2nd Respondent in AS.Nos. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 763/99, 137/01, 136/01, Erode. 139/01, 763/99, 140/01, 141/01, Cross Objection No. 31/01, 170/03, 721/03, Cross Objection No.153/06, 822/03, 871/06 & 756/08 R7 impleaded in AS.No.759/99 & 760/99 as per order dated 27.4.2006, in CMP.No.5455/06 & 5456/06 respectively. R2 impleaded in AS.No.137/01, ..4th Respondent in AS.No. 138, 136, 139, 753, 140, 141, 761/99 & 399/07 dated 27.04.06 in 5716/06, 5717/06, 5459, 5718/06, 5719/06 R4 impleaded in AS.No.761/99 as per order dated 27.4.06 in CMP.No.5457/06 ..5th Respondent in AS.No. R5 impleaded in (1) AS.No.762/99 762/99, 764/99, 618/03, dated 27.4.06 in CMP.No.5458/06 820/03 (2) 764/99 dated 13.8.03 in CMP.No.2439/01 ..12th Respondent in AS.No.325/00 ..3rd Respondent in AS.No.813/03 ..6th Respondent in AS.No.821/03 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Palanisamy 2. P. Sarvalingam 3. P. Nallasamy ..Respondents 1 to 6 in AS.No. 4. P. Sivakumar 760/99 and Appellants 5. Ramasamy 1 to 6 in AS.No.138/01 6. Shanmughasundaram 7. R. Devathal ..Appellants 7 to 10 in AS.No. 8. Malathi 138/01 / Appellants 7 to 10 9. Chithira brought on record as LRs. 10.Kavitha of the 5th Appellant by order dated 27.04.2004 in 14949 to 14951/03 1. Poosappan ..Respondents 1 to 3 in AS.No. 2. Ayyavu 761/99 and Appellants in 3. K. Arumugham AS.No.136/01 1. Krishnan ..Respondents 1 to 4 in AS.No. 2. Ayyavu 762/99 and Appellants 1 to 3 3. Papayammal & Nil in A.S.No.139/01 and 4. C. Thangaraj respondents 1 to 3 & Cross objector No.57/03. R4 impleaded in AS.No.762/99 (Claimants) dated 16.11.2000 in CMP.No. 15652/00 Jeganntha Gounder ..1st Respondent in AS.No. 763/99 & Appellant in AS.No.140/01 1. S. Shanmugam 2. S. Viswanathan ..Respondents 1 to 4 in AS.No. 3. S. Rathinam 764/99 and Appellants in 4. Ramayammal AS.No.141/01 1.Palanisamy 2.Ganesan 3.Arumuga Gounder 4.Krishnasamy Gounder 5.Duraisamy Gounder 6.Chinna Thambi Gounder 7.Subbaraya Gounder 8.Ramayee 9.Arukkani Ambal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.K.Rengasamy 11.K.Thangamuthu .. Respondents 1 to 11 in A.S.No.325/00 and cross objectors 1 to 11 in Cross Objection No.31 of 2001. K.R.Palaniappan .. 1st Respondent in A.S.No.170/03 1.Chinnasamy 2.Valliammal 3.Nagarathinam 4.Sulochana .. R1 to 4 in A.S.No.618/03 Viswanatha Gounder .. 1st Respondent in A.S.No.721/03 Mohan Narayanan .. Respondents 1 & 2 in A.S.No.813/03 and cross objection in cross Objection No.153/06 1.Chandrasekaran 2.Thayammal 3.Malliga 4.Swamiyaththal .. Respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.820/03 1.Veeraswamy 2.Selvaraj 3.Mahesh 4.Palaniyammal 5.Baby .. Respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No.821/03 M.Chitthaian .. 1st Respondent in A.S.No.822/03 K.R.Palaniappan .. 1st Respondent in A.S.No.871/06 1.Jayakrishnan 2.Sahadevan 3.Palaniappa Gounder .. Respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.No.399/07 Appeals and Memo of cross objections against the decree of the Court of the (1) Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, a) dated 16.4.99 and made in LAOP.Nos.7/95,10/95,12/95,6/96,8/95,11/95 (in AS.Nos.759 to 764/99,136 to 141/01 and cross objection 57/03) b)43/96 dated 25.10.99 (AS.No.325/00 & cross objection No.31/01) c)31/96 dated 30.3.01 (AS.No.618/03) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court No.I, Erode a) dated 27.11.02 and made in LAOP.Nos.31/02,25/02,29/02 & 30/02 (in AS.Nos.721/03,813/03,153/06,820/03,821/03) a2) dated 7.11.02 in LAOP.No.28/02 (AS.No.822/03) a3) dated 3.1.06 and made in LAOP.No.25/03(in AS.No.871/06) a4) dated 7.8.06 and made in LAOP.No.22/04 (in AS.No.399/07) a5)dated 17.1.05 and made in LAOP.No.44/96 (in AS.No.756/08) respectively. For appellant :: Mr. V. Ravi, Spl. G.P. in A.S.No.759 to 764 of 1999 A.S.No.325 of 2000, 813 of 2003 A.S.Nos.170,820 to 822 of 2003 for R1 in A.S.No.153 of 2006 for R1 in A.S.Nos.153 of 2006 for R1 in A.S.No.756 of 2008 for R1 A.S.Nos.136 to 141 of 2001, cross objection Nos.57/2003, 31/01 & 153 of 2006. For respondents:: Mr. S. Saravanan for RR3 to 6 in A.S.No.759 of 1999 for RR1 to 5 in A.S.No.760 of 1999 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.761 of 1999 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.762 of 1999 for R1 in A.S.No.763 of 1999 for R1 to 4 in AS.No.764/99 Mr.P.S.Raman, Additional Advocate General for Mr. K. Chelladurai Assisted by Mr.S.Kasikumar for TNHB in all cases Mr. R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel for RR1 & 2 in A.S.No.813 of 2003 for RR1 to 3 in A.S.No.820 of 2003 for RR1 to 5 in A.S.No.821 of 2003 for R1 in A.S.No.822 of 2003 for appellant in A.S.No.153/2006 for appellant in A.S.No.756/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, Advocate for appellant in A.S.Nos.137, 139 & 141 of 2001 Mr.S.K.Nachimuthu for R.4 in A.S.No.762/1999 and for Cross Objection No.57 of 2003 Respondents 1 to 11 in A.s.No.325 of 2000 and for Cross Objection No.31 of 2001. Mr.M.M.Sundaresh for R.1 in A.S.No.871 of 2006 for R.3 in A.S.No.399 of 2007 for R1 in A.S.No.170/2003 Mr.C.Prakasam for RR1 and 2 in A.S.No.399 of 2007 Mr.T.Murugamanickam for RR1 to 4 in A.S.No.618 of 2003 -------------------------------- COMMON JUDGMENT K.K.SASIDHARAN, J These Land Acquisition appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board had taken a decision in the year 1990 to launch a massive housing project at Erode "C" Village (Kasipalayam) in Erode District. Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated in a phased manner. Statutory notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act duly approved by the Government on 9.10.1990, 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991 were published in the Gazette on different dates. These appeals pertain to the acquisition initiated as per the above referred notifications. 3. The extent of property acquired as per the relevant notifications are as follows: a) Notification dt.9.10.90 -- 75.60 Acres b) Notification dt.15.4.91 -- 79.33 Acres c) Notification dt.16.4.91 -- 30.59 Acres d) Notification dt.27.5.91 -- 57.30 Acres https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The details of the land acquisition Original Petitions and the related appeals and Cross Objections and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court and the findings recorded after remand are detailed in the tabular columns below. NOTIFICATION DATED 9.10.1990 DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE VILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM) 4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.1240 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 9.10.1990 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 31-10-1990 AWARD No.6/94 dt.28-9-1994 Sl. No. A.S.No. Cross Objec tion/ Appea l No. LAOP No. Date of LAOP order Survey No. Extent in Hec. & Acre Amount awarded by LAO (per Acre) Amount fixed by Reference Court (Per Sq.ft.) Amount fixed after remand (in Sq.ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 170/03 Nil 31/96 30.03.0 1 744/1 2.82.0 Hec/ 6.97 Ac 37500/- Rs.16.00 Rs.16/- per sq.ft. 2 756/08 Nil 44/96 17.01.0 5 742/1, 2,3 1.14.5 Hec/ 2.83 Ac 37500/- Nil Nil NOTIFICATION DATED 15.04.1991 ERODE HOUSING BOARD BATCH (LAOP) DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE VILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM) 4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.630 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 15-04-1991 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 22-05-1991 AWARD No.1/94 dt.10-6-1994 Sl. No. A.S. No. Cros s Obje ctio n / Appe al No. LAOP No. Date of LAOP order Survey No. Extent in Hec. & Acre Amount awarded by LAO (per Acre) Amount fixed by Reference Court (Per Sq.ft.) Amount fixed after remand (in Sq.ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 759/ 99 136/ 01 7/95 16.4.99 461/4 1.00.0He c/2.47Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ERODE HOUSING BOARD BATCH (LAOP) 2 760/ 99 137/ 01 10/95 16.4.99 460/1 & 2 2.06.0He c/5.09 Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre 3 761/ 99 138/ 01 12/95 16.4.99 461/2 0.46.0He c/1.14Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre 4 762/ 99 139/ 01 6/96 16.4.99 459/3 1.22.0He c/3.01Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre 5 763/ 99 140/ 01 8/95 16.4.99 460/3 0.61.0He c/1.51 Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre 6 764/ 99 141/ 01 & 57/ 03 11/95 16.4.99 489/1, 2 2.03.0 Hec/5.01 Ac 37500/- Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre Rs.400000/- per Acre 7 325/ 00 31/ 01 43/96 25-10-99 453/1, 2 & 454 5.76.0He c/14.22A c 37500/- Rs.17.00 per sq.ft. Rs.600000/- per Acre 8 813/ 03 -- 25/02 27-11-02 461/3 0.50.0He c/1.24Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 per Sq.ft. Rs.600000/- per Acre 9 820/ 03 -- 29/02 27-11-02 489/4, 7 0.82.0He c/2.03Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 per Sq.ft. Rs.600000/- per Acre 10 821/ 03 -- 30/02 27-11-02 459/6 0.98.0He c/2.42Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 per Sq.ft. Rs.600000/- per Acre 11 822/ 03 -- 28/02 27-11-02 458/1, 2 & 459/5 1.98.5He c/4.90Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 per Sq.ft. (Rs.8,71,200/ -per acre) Rs.600000/- per Acre NOTIFICATION DATED 16.04.1991 DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE VILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM) 4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.674 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 16-04-1991 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 22-05-1991 AWARD No.2/94 dt.10-6-1994 Sl. No. A.S.No. Cross Objec tion/ Appea l No. LAOP No. Date of LAOP order Survey No. Extent in Hec. & Acre Amount awarded by LAO (per Acre) Amount fixed by Reference Court (Per Sq.ft.) Amount fixed after remand (in Sq.ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE 1 871/06 -- 25/03 3.1.06 753/2 1.32.0Hec /3.26 Ac 37500/- Rs.15.00 Nil 2 339/07 -- 22/04 7.8.06 753/1 1.44.0 Hec/3.55 Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 Nil NOTIFICATION DATED 27.05.1991 DISTRICT/TALUK – ERODE VILLAGE-ERODE 'C' VILLAGE (KASIPALAYAM) 4(1) NOTIFICATION- APPROVED IN G.O.Ms.No.869 Hg.&U.D.D. Dated 27-05-1991 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE ON 3-07-1991 AWARD No.5/94 dt.03-7-1994 Sl. No. A.S.No. Cross Objec tion/ Appea l No. LAOP No. Date of LAOP order Surve y No. Extent in Hec. & Acre Amount awarded by LAO (per Acre) Amount fixed by Reference Court (Per Sq.ft.) Amount fixed after remand (in Sq.ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 721/03 Nil 31/02 27.11.0 6 482/4 0.38.0He c/0.94 Ac 37500/- Rs.20.00 Rs.6,00,000/ - per acre 2 618/03 Nil 12/97 23.3.01 480/5 ,6 1.30.0 Hec/3.21 Ac 37500/- Rs.17.00 Rs.17/- per sq.ft. 5. The factual matrix as projected in L.A.O.P. No.7/95, 43/96 and 44/96 corresponding to A.S.No.759/99, 325/2000 and 756 of 2008 are extracted below as background facts. A.S.No.759/99 (LAOP 7/95) At the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for putting up residential houses in Erode an extent of 1.00.0 Hectares of land was acquired from the claimants as per Notification dated 15.4.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the claimants the property involved in the Land Acquisition was agricultural land and they were doing agricultural operations and they have been earning substantial income from agriculture. The property is situated in Kasipalayam revenue village in Erode District and is a well developed area and the residential colonies like Jeeva Nagar, Rail Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Bharathi Nagar and Anna Nagar etc. are situated very near to the acquired property. Similarly there are Colleges and other Educational Institutions, Hospitals, Railway workshops and other institutions in and around the acquired property. The claimants have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also relied on documents to show the market value of the property as on the date on which the notification was issued by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the documents evidencing higher value and accepted documents of lesser value and compensation was arrived at Rs.37,500/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, ten witnesses were totally examined in the batch of cases and twenty eight documents were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer also oral evidence was tendered and the award as well as the topo sketch were marked as exhibits and it was contended that the acquired property was only manwari land and it requires considerable amount for development to convert it as house property. 6. Before the Reference Court the claimants have marked among other documents, document dated 4.9.1990 (Ex.C.8) and 8.2.1991 (Ex.C.9) which shows the market rate respectively at Rs.20/- and Rs.30/- per sq.ft. 7. The Land Acquisition Officer appears to have considered the documents relating to property transaction registered in the area for the period from 1.6.1990 to 31.5.1991 but rejected many of the documents. The documents in respect of the property in Survey No.1227/6 evidencing land value at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre, property in Survey No.231/34 showing the value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, property in Survey No. 321/4 for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- per acre and the property in Survey.No.368/1 for a sum of Rs.2,00,217/- per acre were all rejected. The documents relating to the property in Survey No. 484 was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that it was situated at a distance and that higher value was shown. 8. The award file shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has recommended to the Government to fix the land value at Rs.87,120/- per acre. 9. The Reference Court found that the land value in 1990 was only in acres in the area and as such the claimants were not entitled to claim on Sq.ft. basis. The Reference Court also considered the document in Ex.C8 dated 4.9.1990 and found that the said property was sold as a house site, but the acquired land was only manwari land. The Reference Court ultimately fixed the land value at Rs.2,18,500/- per Acre. 10. The award of the Reference Court was challenged by the appellants before this Court and cross objections were filed by the claimants. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, additional evidence produced by the respective parties in appeal were considered and ultimately the matter was remanded to the trial court as per order dated 28.11.2006 to consider the additional documents and to render a factual finding. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Subsequent to the remand, both the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer, as well as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board produced additional documents in support of their respective contentions. The documents submitted by the claimants were marked as document Nos.29 to 35 and the additional documents produced by the Land Acquisition Officer were marked as document Nos. 3 to 8. The claimants have produced the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board wherein they have called for offers for allotment of building site at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per Sq.ft. By placing reliance on those notifications, the claimants have contended before the Reference Court that the property acquired from them were fit for construction of residential houses and it was only on the basis of the satisfaction so arrived at by the requisitioning department, that they have opted to acquire the property and as such it was their prayer for consideration of the potential value also for the purpose of fixing the market rate. They have also contended that on the north of the acquired property Erode-Perunthurai road is situated and on the south there is Erode-Sennimalai road. It was also contended that the Railway Station, Loco Diesel shed, Jeevan Transport Corporation Workshop, Bharathy Vidya Bhavan School , Womens college, Medical College, Temples, as well as residential colonies like Jeeva Nagar were all situated within the periphery of the acquired land. The claimants have also examined a witness by name Ramalingam and in his evidence he has stated that he sold an extent of one acre of land for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs but however only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- per acre was shown in the document and the same was resorted to only for the purpose of avoiding stamp duty. 12. The Reference Court found that the acquired property was situated three kilometres away from the Erode junction and between Erode-Perunthurai road and Erode-Sennimalai road and the reputed residential colonies like Jeeva Nagar, Rail Nagar, K.K.Nagar, Bharathi Nagar, and Anna Nagar etc., are all situated within 1 km away from the acquired property. 13. The Reference Court has also given a factual finding that on the north of the acquired property, Erode town is situated and by taking into consideration the situation of the Bhavani river and Kalingarayan Canal, the Reference Court observed that the property is in a good residential locality. The Reference Court also considered the topo sketch, wherein the different housing colonies as well as the Collectorate, Railway station and other important places in and around the acquired land were shown. The Reference Court found that only Square feet valuation was shown in the documents produced on the side of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer has produced a document to show the value at Rs.60,000/- per acre and the author of the said document by name Ramalingam was examined as a witness and it was only the said Ramalingam, who has given evidence to the effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the transaction was a distress sale and the actual sale amount was Rs.10 lakhs per acre. The Reference Court was of the opinion that the documents are often undervalued and on the basis of the notifications issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, wherein the very same land was offered for sale at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per sq.ft., the Reference Court arrived at a factual finding that the acquired property was fit for putting up residential houses. With respect to the documents produced by the claimants relating to the earlier acquisition of the property in Survey No. 767/B1, which was the subject matter of the First Appeal in A.S.226/91, wherein a sum of Rs.17.11 per sq.ft. was awarded as compensation, the Court found that the said property was abutting the main road, but the subject property was not abutting the road and as such the Court was of the opinion that no reliance could be placed on the said document. According to the Reference Court only in case electricity, water etc. were available as well as well laid road that valuation on square feet basis could be resorted to. Ultimately, the reference court fixed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs per acre as market value for the acquired property. A.S.No. 325/2000 (LAOP No.43/96) 14. In this particular reference, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was fixed as the market rate. This property is also covered by the notification dated 15.4.91. In this reference also, originally a sum of Rs. 37,500/- per acre was granted as compensation. The Reference Court relied on an earlier award of the Land Acquisition Officer, wherein a sum of Rs.30/- was granted as compensation and after deducting 40% towards development charges, a sum of Rs.17/- per Sq.ft. was fixed as market rate. After remand, documents were produced by both the claimants as well as the Land Acquisition Officer. Even though the claimants have relied on the notification issued by the Tamilnadu Housing Board calling for applications for allotment of the land at the rate of Rs.65/- to Rs.130/- per Sq. ft. the Reference Court was not inclined to accept the said valuation for the purpose of fixing the market value, as according to the Reference Court the property was developed by the Housing Board and they have also laid a road and provided common facilities. The Reference Court was also of the opinion that it was not possible to fix the market rate on square feet rate as the acquired property was only agricultural property extending to many acres and therefore the valuation should be on acre basis. From the documents produced by the claimants the Reference Court found that the market rate was between Rs.25 to Rs.35 per sq.ft., but it was only after development of the property as house sites. The Reference Court did not take at its face value the evidence of the vendor of the data sale land by name Ramalingam, who has deposed that he had sold the data land only for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.60000/- shown as the value per acre was only to avoid the stamp duty. The Reference Court also recorded that no evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants about the actual distance from the acquired land to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Erode Town as well as about the income they have been getting from the agricultural operations carried on in the acquired property. The Reference Court also recorded a factual finding that all these properties are in same level. However without reference to any of the supporting documents the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.6 lakhs per acre. A.S.No.756 of 2008 (L.A.O.P.No.44/1996) 15. This appeal is preferred by the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.44 of 1996 dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court fixing compensation in respect of his property bearing Survey Nos.742/1,2 and 3 having an extent of 1.14.5 hectares in Erode "C" Village (Kasipalayam) in Erode District. Section 4(1) notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1240 dated 9.10.1990 and it was published in the gazette on 31.10.1990. The property was claimed to be an agricultural property. However the Land Acquisition Officer considered the property as a manwari land and determined the market value at Rs.37,500/- per acre. Since the award was not acceptable to the appellant, he prayed for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Reference Court, the appellant contended that the property is situated in a developing locality and there are housing colonies in the nearby area. According to the appellant the property has got locational advantages. Reliance was placed on Exs.C1 and C2 relating to the sale of house property with an area of 2440 sq.ft. and 1220 sq.ft. sold at Rs.16/- and Rs.20/- per sq.ft. respectively. However, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the appellant was not entitled for valuation on square feet basis and rejected the contention regarding fixation of market value on the basis of Exs.C.1 and C.2. The Reference Court ultimately determined the market rate of the property at Rs.75,000/- per acre without reference to any particular document. Being aggrieved by the award the claimant is before us. 16. We have perused the topo sketch and it was found that the property acquired from the appellant is lying adjacent to the property acquired as per notification dated 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991. In view of the location of the property and lie of the land, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the very same market value which we propose to fix in respect of other property covered by notification dated 15.4.1991, 16.4.1991 and 27.5.1991. SUBMISSIONS:- 17. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that it is a misnomer to call Kasipalayam as a Village. It is located just in the outskirts of Erode. The lands that are acquired are just situate behind the Collectorate and there are Educational Institutions, Hospitals, developed neighbourhoods like Rail Nagar and K.K.Nagar. The railway track also runs close by as also the main road and these locational advantages must be taken note of. He also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that they are not low lying lands which require development. The lands were already levelled and only dry cash crops were grown and therefore, there cannot be any reduction on the ground of development charges. In support of their case, they relied on the judgment of this Court in appeal No.226 of 1993 wherein this Court had fixed the compensation at Rs.7,42,506/- per acre for acquisition proceedings that commenced by Section 4(1) Notification issued in the year 1985. In that case, this