Judgment :- COMMON JUDGMENT E. PADMANABHAN, J. The above appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in the respective LAOPs. 2. For convenience, the appeals are divided into two batches on the basis of 4(1) Notifications. The first batch of appeals relate to the Section 4(1) Notifications published on 12.10.90, 25.2.1991, 20.3.1991, 29.4.1991, 3,7.1991 29.7.1991, 20.12.1991, 3.11.1991, 17.7.1991, 13.3.1991, 6.6.1991, 14.12.1991 and 5.8.1992 and referred lands covered by 1991 Notifications. 3. The second batch of appeals relate to Sec.4(1) Notifications published on 24.4.1988, 11.5.1988 and 12.10.1988 which will be referred as lands covered by 1988 Notifications. 4. Here and now it has to be pointed out that the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents agreed that compensation could be fixed separately for each batch though there is difference of few months in the dates of publication of Sec.4(1) Notifications by a month or two or three or few months. 5. Therefore we have to fix the market value of the acquired lands as of the year 1991 or of the year 1988. Counsel on either side fairly stated that within a year or within a span of few months there has been no appreciable difference in the market prices of the acquired lands and therefore conveniently the two batches could be divided. Only with the consent of either side such a procedure is being adopted. 6. Vast extent of lands in Uchapatti Village in Thiruparankundram Taluk of Madurai District were acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for its Neighbourhood scheme. In fact even during the earlier years substantial extent OF lands were acquired for the same purpose in the same village and the market values have been enhanced by the learned Subordinate Judge on a Reference and on further appeal a Division Bench of this Court fixed the value at Rs.550/= per cent in respect of 1986 acquisitions. It is also fairly stated that entire extent of lands in the Uchappati village have been acquired excepting for small pockets in the ancient village where houses have been built. In other words, the entire lands in Uchappatti village has been acquired for the purpose of Housing Board Scheme so far. 7. It is also fairly stated that entire extent of lands in the Uchappati village have been acquired excepting for small pockets in the ancient village where houses have been built. In other words, the entire lands in Uchappatti village has been acquired for the purpose of Housing Board Scheme so far. 7. The Land Acquisition Officer in the first batch of cases fixed the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.95 or 100 or 50 per cent and various rates have been fixed on the date of 4(1) Notifications. On a reference at the instance of the land owners/claimants made under Sec.18, the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai fixed the market rate of Rs.1700/= per cent uniformly in respect of both the batch of references. The said enhancement is being challenged in these appeals. 8. It is contended that the fixation of market value at Rs.1700/= per cent is highly disproportionate and there is no genuine sale. To increase to such an extent the sale value has been boosted with the full knowledge that the Housing Board has proposed to acquire the lands. The learned counsel for the Housing Board has taken out an application for reception of additional documents at the time of hearing of the appeals and contended that the market value has to be slashed considerably. 9. The learned counsel for the Housing Board even went to the extent of saying that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself is too high and it has to be reduced. The learned counsel for the Housing Board, the beneficiary also contended that the earlier judgements of this court with respect to the acquisition of identical lands in the same village during the earlier years should not be taken into consideration at all as the additional documents now produced were not exhibited on the earlier occasion. However, it is admitted that the earlier Division Bench judgment fixing the market value at Rs.550/= per cent has reached finality and the claimants were fully paid. 10. Per contra, it is contended that there has been a manyfold increase in the market value of the lands in the village as well as in next villages consequent to urbanisation and therefore with respect to the fixation of at Rs.1700/= per cent, no interference is called for. 10. 10. Per contra, it is contended that there has been a manyfold increase in the market value of the lands in the village as well as in next villages consequent to urbanisation and therefore with respect to the fixation of at Rs.1700/= per cent, no interference is called for. 10. The points that arise for consideration in these two batch of appeals are:- (i) What is the market value of the acquired lands in the first batch of appeals covered by Section 4 (1) Notifications published on 12.10.90, 31.10.90, 25.2.1991, 20.3.1991, 29.4.1991, 3,7.1991 29.7.1991, 20.12.1991, 3.11.1991, 17.7.1991, 13.3.1991, 6.6.1991, 14.12.1991 and 5.8.1992? (ii) What is the market value of the acquired lands in the second batch of appeals covered by Section 4(1) Notifications published on 24.4.1988 or 11.5.1988 or 12.10.1988? (iii)To what relief the appellants are entitled to? 12. At the joint request of either side, as already set out above, we have divided the acquisition into two batches and assess the market value though even among the very batch there is considerable difference between the dates of Notifications. It has to be pointed out that in all the cases only same set of documents have been exhibited and common arguments were advanced before the court below as well as before this Court. 13. Ex.C.3 is a document of sale dated 22.4.1991 in respect of S.No.82/6, whereunder an extent of 3 cents have been sold for a consideration of Rs.5,756 and it works out to RS.1900 per cent. EX.C.5, dated 10.12.1990 is a sale deed marked by the claimants in respect of same S.No.82/5 sold for a consideration of Rs.6640/= and it works out to Rs.1660 per cent. EX.C.4 is another sale deed marked on the side of the claimant which is dated 29.8.1988, whereunder five cents in S.No.35/1 has been sold at the rate of Rs.1500 per cent. In one another reference another sale deed has been marked as Ex.C.1 by which lands comprised in S.No.85/5E measuring 5 cents has been sold and it works out to RS.1500 per cent. 14. These sales relate to small house plots in and around the ancient habitation and being small extent, we have to view the same as not reflecting the market value of lands located outside the existing colonies. But there is no quarrel that all the acquired lands are potential house sites though they are agricultural lands on ground. 15. 14. These sales relate to small house plots in and around the ancient habitation and being small extent, we have to view the same as not reflecting the market value of lands located outside the existing colonies. But there is no quarrel that all the acquired lands are potential house sites though they are agricultural lands on ground. 15. The learned standing counsel for the Housing Board took out CMP No.15064 of 2003 for reception of additional documentary evidence. This application was filed for reception of additional evidence under Or.41. Rule 27 CPC in respect of the following seven sale deeds: 16. While referring to these additional documents it is contended that the market value of the lands in the same Uchappati village has to be slashed and sales have been effected for Rs.40 or 50, or 75 or 100 or 140 or 200 or 250 per cent just before Section 4 (1) Notification and, therefore, the same has to be taken into consideration. The last minute attempt to receive additional documents has to be deprecated. Without any notice this application has been filed and the counsel for the respondents have no opportunity to counter the same. It is true that no oral evidence is required to prove the extent or the value thereof covered by the seven documents. But that does not mean that the same need not be disclosed to the other side. The documents sought to be filed here were not produced before the court below and no acceptable explanation is forthcoming as to why it has not been produced, nor these documents have been produced before the court below in respect of the earlier acquisition which were the subject matter of earlier batch of appeals before this court, where market value has been fixed at Rs.550/= per cent. Though we will not be justified in allowing the CMP or order reception of the additional documentary evidence, for the limited purpose of showing that the value of lands in the village is very low and not consistent and we order the Petition and the seven documents are marked as Additional Exhibits A.1 to A.7 in the appeals. 17. The Exhibits marked by the claimants and the Additional Exhibits now marked by the Housing Board are as hereunder: 18. 17. The Exhibits marked by the claimants and the Additional Exhibits now marked by the Housing Board are as hereunder: 18. This court in respect of identical lands located in the same village covered by the earlier notifications, but later to these additional documents, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.550/= per cent, which has reached finality and payments have been made to the land owners on that basis. A perusal of Ex.C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4 or C.5 would show sharp variance and they do not impress us. The additional exhibits A-1 to A-7 also reflects the same way. It has been vehemently contended that the claimants documents have been created with a view to boost the market value of the acquired lands after coming to know of the proposal to acquire from stage to stage for the purpose of Housing Board. For the Housing Board lands were not acquired at one stretch, but lands were acquired year after year. Hence, there is every justification for the counsel for the appellant in contending that these documents have been created to boost the market value in the locality. Very same Survey Numbers have been sold at Rs.1000 at or about the same time and on an earlier point of time it has been sold at still far lesser rates. If we see the sale of the year 1991 the market value shoots upto Rs.1500/= per cent. But during the same year as seen from the additional documents in respect of the lands in the same village in the same locality the land has been sold at the rate of either for Rs.50 per cent or thereabout. In 1985 the lands have been sold at the rate of Rs.140 per cent and 1989 at the rate of Rs.200 per cent and in the year 1990 it has been sold at the rate of Rs.50 per cent. 19. All the sale in respect of the lands in the locality are of the same tharam commanding the same facilities. Hence, it is clear that sales relied upon reflect vast variation and they are not only unpredictable but there is an attempt to boost the market value of the lands with the knowledge of impending acquisition. There is no other explanation for variance from Rs.50/= to Rs.1,900/= per cent in respect of lands, which are identical in every respect. Hence, it is clear that sales relied upon reflect vast variation and they are not only unpredictable but there is an attempt to boost the market value of the lands with the knowledge of impending acquisition. There is no other explanation for variance from Rs.50/= to Rs.1,900/= per cent in respect of lands, which are identical in every respect. Section 4(1) Notifications are innumerable and the documents are being created for small extents from time to time with a view to boost the market value. The variations as reflected by Exs.C-1, to C-5 and additional exhibits show phenomenal variation and sale value of per cent of land sold ranges from Rs.50/= to Rs.1900/= during the same year. This is rather extraordinary. We are not impressed by Exs.C.1 to C.5 or the additional documents produced and marked as A.1 to A.7, as there is too much of variation. 20. Therefore, in our view these sale deeds cannot be relied upon as reflecting the market value. We are not impressed by the sale deeds which has been pressed by the counsel for the land owners or for that matter by the counsel for the Housing Board. We have also taken note of the fact that in respect of the earlier acquisition the market value has been fixed at Rs.550 per cent which was in respect of 1985 or 1986. The judgment of the Division Bench of this court has reached finality and for all the claimants the said compensation has been paid. In some cases the same set of land owners were parties to earlier appeal. Further there is no appreciable difference. Even after acquisition the Housing Board is yet to being its activity in the village. We are not impressed by the sale deeds C.1 to C.5 as the case may be, nor we would be justified in acting upon the additional documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7 in one of the appeals. Hence, we deem it fair to take the rate of Rs.500/= per cent fixed by this court in respect of 1985/86 acquisitions and it would be reasonable to give an increase of 10% every year to the said amount. 21. The sale deeds though relate to the area from where the lands have been acquired, but we are not impressed since as has been rightly pointed out they are all boosted sale deeds for small extent. 21. The sale deeds though relate to the area from where the lands have been acquired, but we are not impressed since as has been rightly pointed out they are all boosted sale deeds for small extent. They are all sale deeds which have been created to boost the prices. The market value as reflected by the additional documents also cannot be taken into consideration as reflecting the market value during the material period as in respect of the earlier acquisition which are covered by the 4(1) Notifications of the year 1985 or 1986, this court has fixed the market value at Rs.550/= per cent, while reducing the market value fixed by the court below. Since we are not impressed by the sale deeds produced on either side as they show vast phenomenal variation. The variation is demonstrably unpredictable as seen from the sale at Rs.50/= per cent to Rs.1,900/= per cent. The only other method of assessing the market value is to give 10% annual increase for the five years period. 22. In our considered view and taking into consideration of the totality of facts and in the light of the discussions, we will be justified in giving 10% increase every year taking the basic price of Rs.550/= per cent as fixed by this court in the earlier batch of appeals, in respect of substantial portion of the lands in the same village, but covered by 1985/86 Notifications. When once we discard the sale deeds this is the only fair procedure and better parameter, which we would adopt to fix the market value. As already pointed out the entire remaining extent of lands in the village have been acquired in these batch of appeals. There has been all round activities. Those lands are located in the same village. The lands are located a kilometre away from the national highway. But the lands adjacent to the National highway have also been acquired and construction have been put up for different purposes such as warehousing corporation godowns, or industrial estate or other public purposes. The major and only access to these lands is Austinpatty-T.B.Sanatorium Road, which connects the National Highway running North to South at a distance of two kilometres. 23. But the lands adjacent to the National highway have also been acquired and construction have been put up for different purposes such as warehousing corporation godowns, or industrial estate or other public purposes. The major and only access to these lands is Austinpatty-T.B.Sanatorium Road, which connects the National Highway running North to South at a distance of two kilometres. 23. Taking into consideration of the material facts the situation of the lands, potentialities as house sites, their location, advantages or disadvantages, we fix the market value of the acquired land pursuant to the Notifications issued in the year 1990/91 i.e.,for the first batch of appeals at RS.870/= per cent. 24. In respect of the second batch of appeals, covered by the Sec.4(1) Notifications of the year 1988, we fix the market value of the lands at Rs.780/= per cent. 25. In the result, for the first batch of appeals, we fix the market value at Rs.870/= per cent with usual solatium, interest on solatium, additional compensation and other amounts payable as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In respect of the second batch of appeals, we fix the market value at Rs.780/= per cent with usual solatium, interest on solatium, additional compensation and other amounts payable as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 26. In the result, the application for reception of additional evidence is allowed and these appeals are allowed in part. The parties shall bear their respective costs in these appeals. Consequently, connected CMPs are closed.