Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1995 made in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 1987 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam. 2. An extent of 22. 5 Hectares of land comprised in two survey numbers (Survey No.1/2B and 1/3) in Budamur Village, Vriddhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District belonging to the Respondent herein/claimant was acquired by the Government along with a further extent of 0.74.5 Acres comprised in other survey numbers belonging to other persons, for the purpose of setting up a Regional Research Station under the control of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The acquisition made at the instance of the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Particulars of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was lastly effected on 21.03.1984. However, invoking the emergency provision found under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the property was taken by the Government on 22.06.1984 after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. On the same day the property was handed over to the Requisitioning Department. In the award enquiry that followed for fixing the amount of compensation for the land acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer collected particulars regarding as many as 274 sales pertaining to the lands in the locality for being considered as data sales. However, rejecting 269 items out of 274 included sale-data collected by the Land Acquisition Officer as not reflecting the true market value of the acquired land for one or the other reasons cited in the award, the Land Acquisition Officer took the sales noted against items 182 to 185 and 189 of the data sales as the documents reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land. Thus, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.74,100/-per hectare and awarded compensation to the respondent / claimant as follows: Market value of the property (22. 5 Hectares) at the rate Of Rs.74,100/- per Hectare : Rs.1,64,872.50 Value of structures, buildings, wells, etc. : Rs. 70,122.00 Cost of standing crops : Rs. 2,640.00 Value of Trees : Rs. 70.00 Total market value : Rs.2,37,704.50 30% solatium : Rs. 71,311.50 Increase in the market value calculated at the rate of 12% Per annum from the date of 4(1) notification dated 21.03.84 till the date of taking possession(21.06.84) : Rs. : Rs. 70,122.00 Cost of standing crops : Rs. 2,640.00 Value of Trees : Rs. 70.00 Total market value : Rs.2,37,704.50 30% solatium : Rs. 71,311.50 Increase in the market value calculated at the rate of 12% Per annum from the date of 4(1) notification dated 21.03.84 till the date of taking possession(21.06.84) : Rs. 7,267.89 Total amount of compensation : Rs.3,16,283.00 Interest was calculated for the said amount at the rate of 9% from 21.06.1984 the date on which the Government took possession, for a period of one year and thereafter till the date of payment at the rate of 15% per annum. The total amount of the compensation arrived at by the land acquisition officer as indicated above along with the interest was paid to the respondent/claimant. But the respondent received it under protest and made a request to the Land Acquisition Officer for making a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for fixing the reasonable compensation. 3. In the statement given before the Land Acquisition Officer expressing dissatisfaction with the amount awarded as compensation, and also in the statement of claim made before the Reference Court (court of subordinate judge, Vriddhachalam), the respondent/ claimant had not specified any amount to be fixed as the market value. She was content with stating that some other properties were sold in the open market for a higher price than the value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and that hence the market value of the acquired land deserved upward revision. Besides contending that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was far below the actual market value of the land acquired, she had also contended that the thatched shed, well, motor pump-set, motor shed and trees should have been valued at Rs.5,00,000/- as such developments were made by her spending about three lakhs of rupees. 4. The Referring Officer in his statement of objection filed before the Reference Court namely, the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam, contended that the value fixed by the Referring Officer in his award was just and proper and the same did not call for any upward revision and prayed for confirmation of the award passed by him. 5. 4. The Referring Officer in his statement of objection filed before the Reference Court namely, the Court of Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam, contended that the value fixed by the Referring Officer in his award was just and proper and the same did not call for any upward revision and prayed for confirmation of the award passed by him. 5. In the enquiry before the Reference Court namely, the court of the Subordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam, three witnesses were examined as CW1 to CW3 and three documents were marked as Ex.C1 to C3 on the side of the Claimant (Respondent herein). RW1 was the sole witness examined on the side of the Referring Officer (the first appellant herein). The second respondent at whose instance, the acquisition was made was also given notice and permitted to take part in the proceedings. 6. At the conclusion of enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, on an appreciation of evidence, held that the respondent/claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.650/-per cent, revised the compensation for trees and fixed the same at Rs.1,000/-as against Rs.70/- fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed the valuation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the well and motor pump-set as well as the standing crops. Thus, the total amount of compensation was arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge as follows: i) Market value of the property (22. 5 Hectares) at the rate of Rs.650/- per cent : Rs.3,57,233.75 ii) Value for the well, motor pumpset, etc. : Rs. 70,122.00 iii)Cost of Standing crops : Rs. 2,640.00 iv) Value of Trees : Rs. 1,000.00 v) Total market value : Rs.3,57,233.75 vi) 30% solatium : Rs.1,07,167.12 vii) Increase in market value calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 21.03.1984, the date of Sec.4(1) notification till 22.06.1984, the date of taking possession which comes to : Rs. 10,717.01 Grand Total : Rs.4,75,101.88 Rounded to : Rs.4,75,102.00 Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from 22.06.1984, the date on which possession was taken and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. 7. 10,717.01 Grand Total : Rs.4,75,101.88 Rounded to : Rs.4,75,102.00 Interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from 22.06.1984, the date on which possession was taken and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. 7. Challenging the correctness of the award/decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge awarding enhanced compensation as indicated above, the Referring Officer as well as the beneficiary of the land acquisition (Requisitioning Department) have filed the present appeal challenging the correctness of the award passed by the Court below and they have prayed for setting aside the award of the learned Subordinate Judge directing payment of enhanced compensation and for confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge is excessive? Whether the same has got to be reduced?" 9. This court heard the submissions made by Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing on behalf of the appellants. The materials available on record were also perused. 10. The claimants land was acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely to set up a Regional Research Station at Vriddhachalam under the control of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Out of the total extent of 97. 0 hectares acquired an extent of 22. 5 hectares comprised in survey Nos.1/2B and 1/3 alone was that of the respondent/claimant. The market value for the property was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.74,100/-per hectare based on five sale deeds noted in items 182 to 185 and 189 of the data sales collected by the Land Acquisition Officer. According to the Land Acquistion Officer, as per the particulars noted in Items 182 to 185 an extent of 24 cents in R.S.No.1/2A itself was sold for a sum of Rs.7,200/-on 13.06.1983 under each one of the documents Nos.1150 to 1153 of 1983 and yet another extent of 24 cents in the very same survey number was sold under document No.1268/1983 on 24.06.1983. As per the said sales, the rate per hectare worked out to Rs.74,100/-. As per the said sales, the rate per hectare worked out to Rs.74,100/-. As the sales were effected within one year prior to 4(1) Notification and the sales were made in respect of the very same survey number, according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the same alone would reflect the correct value of the acquired land. 11. On the other hand it was the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent/claimant that the said lands allegedly sold could not be compared with her land acquired, as her land was garden land abutting the main Road and was getting irrigation from the well dug there in. The Land Acquisition Officer seems to have relied on five sale deeds as reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land; When the same is not accepted but disputed by the claimant in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the referring officer should have produced the copies of the said documents relied on by him. The production of the said document will also enable the court to find out whether the same can be accepted as reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property. 12. In the absence of production of an authenticated copy of the document relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer as reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property, the court to which the reference was made could not have taken into account the said sale deeds for fixing the market value of the land acquired. Under such circumstances, the only option available to the court below was to fix the market value of the acquired land with reference to the documents produced on either side. In fact there is no document produced on the side of the Referring Officer. On the other hand, the respondent herein/claimant produced certified copies of two sale deeds and the site plan showing the proposed construction of the Motor shed. The said plan was marked as Ex.C1 and the certified copies of the sale deeds produced by the respondent herein/claimant were marked as Ex.C2 and C3. The learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to rely on Ex.C2 as reflecting the correct market value of the property acquired. 13. Ex.C2 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 13.02.1984 under which 75 cents of land was sold for a sum of Rs.48,750/-. The learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to rely on Ex.C2 as reflecting the correct market value of the property acquired. 13. Ex.C2 is the certified copy of a sale deed dated 13.02.1984 under which 75 cents of land was sold for a sum of Rs.48,750/-. As per the said document the value of one cent comes to Rs.650/-. Certified copy of yet another sale deed dated 25.01.1984 produced by the respondent herein/claimant was marked as Ex.C3. 5¼ cents grama nattham land in R.S.No.20/3B of Budamur Village was sold for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. But the value of the property sold under said deed was given as Rs.11,681/-. As per the market value noted in the said sale deed the value of one cent approximately comes to Rs.2,225/-. If the price quoted in the sale deed is taken, then the value per cent will be a little more than Rs.1,000/-. But the learned Subordinate Judge has not chosen to calculate the market value of the acquired property either on the basis of the price quoted in Ex.C3 or on the basis of the market value quoted in the said deed. On the other hand, the learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to take Ex.C.2 sale deed as the document reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property as on the date of 4(1) notification. As pointed out supra, the market value fixed by the court below based on Ex.C2 is just Rs.650/- per cent. Had Ex.C3 been taken as the sale deed reflecting the market value of the acquired property, the market value should have been fixed at a rate which shall be much higher than the rate adopted by the court below. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance for the Referring Officer and the Requisitioning Department who are the appellants herein for selecting Ex.C2 sale deed in preference to Ex.C3. 14. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given evidence regarding the sales under Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively. The testimony of CW.3 that the property sold under Ex.C2 sale deed is situated at a distance of 150 feet from the acquired property has not been contraverted either by cross-examining him on the said aspect or by producing any other document. 14. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given evidence regarding the sales under Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively. The testimony of CW.3 that the property sold under Ex.C2 sale deed is situated at a distance of 150 feet from the acquired property has not been contraverted either by cross-examining him on the said aspect or by producing any other document. Similarly, the evidence of CW.2 that the property sold under Ex.C2 lies abutting Cuddalore Main Road and that the distance between the acquired land and the property sold under Ex.C2 is just 100 feet also has not been contraverted. Clear evidence has been adduced through CW1 and CW2 that besides the proximity with the acquired land, the property sold under Ex.C2 in all other respects viz, quality, amenities etc., is similar and comparable to the property acquired. The property sold under Ex.C3 was a pucca nattham land whereas the acquired property was admittedly an agricultural land. The court below has not committed any error in preferring Ex.C2 to Ex.C3 for fixing the market value of the acquired land. 15. At the cost of repetition, it is also pointed out that for fixing the market value, selection of Ex.C2 among the two sale deeds produced before the courts below as reflecting the correct market value is beneficial to the Referring Officer and the Requisitioning Department. If at all anybody is to be aggrieved by the non-selection of Ex.C3 as reflecting the correct market value, it shall be respondent herein/claimant and not the appellants. Therefore the appellants cannot have any grievance over the selection of Ex.C2 between the two sale deeds produced by the claimant namely, Ex.C2 and C3. As no document was produced either on the side of the Referring Officer or the Requisitioning Department before the court below, they cannot have any grievance over the selection of the sale deed which shows the lowest price than the other documents produced by the respondent herein/claimant for assessing the market value of the property acquired. Therefore, the challenge made by the appellants to the choice of the document (data-sale) made by the court below to fix the market value of the acquired property does not have substance in it and hence the same is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the challenge made by the appellants to the choice of the document (data-sale) made by the court below to fix the market value of the acquired property does not have substance in it and hence the same is liable to be rejected. The finding of the court below that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification should be taken as Rs.650/-per cent does not call for any interference by this court in this appeal and the same has got to be confirmed. 16. The court below has rightly rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation for the well, motor pumpset, etc., and fixed the same on par with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. No serious objection has been raised on behalf of the appellants against the fixation of the market value of the standing trees at Rs.1,000/-as against Rs.70/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The very same value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the standing crops has been adopted by the court below. Additional market value has also been rightly calculated for a period of three months from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking possession at the rate of 12% per annum on the total market value excluding solatium. 30% solatium was also awarded by the court below under Section 23(2) on the market value excluding the additional market value calculated under Section 23(1A). The learned Judge of the Lower Court has also rightly awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter further interest at the rate of 15% per annum in accordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 17. Viewed from any angle, the judgment and decree (award) of the court below cannot be termed either infirm or defective warranting interference by this court in the appeal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same has got to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 18. However, there shall be no order as to costs.