Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No. 8 of 1995 on the file of the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal / The Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur. 62 cents in S.No.211/2, Vinnamangalam Village was acquired by the Government to provide House sites for Adi Dravidar. 2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act")was published in the gazette on 5. 1990. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation for the above said lands at the rate of Rs.70 per cent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.14/1991-92 dated 23. 1992, the claimant has filed objections which were referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. 3. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal C.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and Exs C1 to C5 were marked. Special Tahsildar(Adi Dravidar Welfare) was examined as R.W.1 and Exs B1 to B4 were marked. After considering the evidence both oral and documentary , the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer , on the basis of Ex B3 dated 112. 1988, fixing the compensation as Rs.70/- per cent (one acre of the land was sold for Rs.7,000/- under Ex B3) cannot be upheld because the data land under Ex B3 cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the value of the lands acquired by the Government since Notification under 4(1) of the Act was dated 5. 1990 but Ex B3 is dated 112. 1988 ie., nearly 1½ years prior to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. On behalf of the claimant Exs C1 to C4 were exhibited before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Ex C1 is dated 16. 1989 under which 44 cents in S.No.211/1 was sold for Rs.44,000/- ie., one cent was sold for Rs.1,000/-. Even though the land sold under Ex C1 is nearer to the lands acquired, the sale under Ex C1 was effected nearly 11 months prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex C2 is of the year 1994 ie., four years after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex C3 is of the year 1996 ie., six years after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex C4 is of the year 1996. Ex C2 is of the year 1994 ie., four years after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex C3 is of the year 1996 ie., six years after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Ex C4 is of the year 1996. Under such circumstances and for the above said reason, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected Exs C1 to C4. Ex C5 is dated 26. 1990 under which 396 sq.ft was sold for Rs.3960/- ie., at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. The vendee under Ex C5 Meganathan was examined as C.W.5. According to C.W.5, the land sold under Ex C5 is north of the lands acquired by the Government and it was a plot fit for construction. Since Ex C5 sale was effected nearly 58 days after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the gazette dated 5. 1990, the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the compensation for the lands acquired cannot be fixed at Rs.10/- per sq.ft but to be fixed as Rs.5/- per sq.ft. for the lands acquired. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that since the Land Acquisition Tribunal has rejected, Ex C1 on the ground that it is prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and Exs C2 to C4 are after the notification ought to have rejected, Ex C5 also, since Ex.C.5 is 58 days subsequent to the publication of 4(1) Notification in the gazette dated 5. 1990. Before the Land Acquisition Officer Ex B1 sales Statistics Register was produced to show that the details regarding the sales effected between 30.5.1987 to 25. 1990. From Ex B1 , it is seen that there were sales effected between 21. 1990 and 20.4.1990 (six sales) but they are all relating to S.Nos. 364/3, 398/2D, 536/4, 416/3E, 452/4, 253/2A, 253/2D, 253/C and 422/2A. Only under the sale deed dated 20.4.1990, one cent was sold at the rate of Rs.700/- ie., in respect of S.No.253/2A,253/2D, and 253/2C. It is seen from Ex B2-plan, S.No.253 is situate far away from the lands acquired by the Government. That is why the Land Acquisition Officer has also not taken into consideration, the sale effected on 20.4.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation on the basis of Ex B3 dated 112. 1988. It is seen from Ex B2-plan, S.No.253 is situate far away from the lands acquired by the Government. That is why the Land Acquisition Officer has also not taken into consideration, the sale effected on 20.4.1990. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation on the basis of Ex B3 dated 112. 1988. Ex B3 land ie., S.No.265/2 is also situate west of the lands acquired and that is also far away from the lands acquired by the Government. That is why, the learned Tribunal has rejected the data land ie., Ex B3 dated 112. 1988. Except the fact that Ex C5 is 58 days later to 4(1) Notification, the property sold under Ex C5 ie., S.No.192 is just opposite to the lands acquired by the Government. R.W.1 Special Tahsildar in his evidence in the cross examination would admit that the potential value of the lands acquired by the Government is high by saying that there are 5000 residential houses which are situate around the land acquired and that on the west of the lands acquired, lies Ambur-Vaniyambadi Road and there tanneries and other factories are also situated in and around the lands acquired and that there is a post office railway station, and schools are also situated in the Vinnamangalam Village where the acquired lands were situated. The Land Acquisition Tribunal only on the ground that Ex C5 is 58 days after 4 (1) Notification has reduced the value per square feet as Rs.5/-for the lands acquired as against the value fixed at Rs.10/- per square feet under Ex C5. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant relying on a decision reported in D.B. Rudrani-v- The Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Collector),Dharmapuri (2001 (2) CTC, 146)would contend that the sale transactions involving smaller extent , the sale can be considered by allowing the reasonable deduction and that the Tribunal has deducted 50 per cent of the value from Ex C5 while fixing the compensation for the lands acquired and at the maximum as per the above decision only 40 per cent ought to have been deducted by the learned Tribunal. But admittedly, the claimant has not preferred any cross objection against the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The facts of the above case are that an extent of 53. But admittedly, the claimant has not preferred any cross objection against the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The facts of the above case are that an extent of 53. 5 hectares(6.25 Acres) of dry lands in Survey Nos.17,18 and 19 in A.Jettihalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk were acquired by the Government for construction of building shed for Annai Sathya Transport Corporation. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette dated 7. 86. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an Award at the rate of Rs.26,490/- per acre. The claimants filed their objections which were referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur had dismissed the claim of the claimants thereby confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. When the matter was came up before this Court by way of an appeal, the learned Bench of this Court held as follows: ". . . . .the sale transaction under Ex A2 alone can be considered. We have already stated that S.No.117 under Ex A2 is abutting the Salem-Bangalore Highway on the eastern side and the acquired lands in S.Nos.17,18 and 19 are also abutting the very same Highway on the western side. The said sale had taken place one year prior to 4(1) Notification. As per Ex A2, one cent had been sold for Rs.2,000/-. Though the land acquisition officer was aware of the existence of land in S.No.117, abutting the Salem-Bangalore Highway, it is not clear why he has chosen the land in S.No.115, which is little away from the Highways, and fixed market value at the rate of Rs.26,490/-When the land in S.No.117 and the acquired lands in S.Nos.17,18, and 19 lie on the same footing, we are of the view that it would be proper and just to fix compensation for the acquired lands as per Ex A2. However, we should not forget the fact that a total extent of 6.25 acres were acquired for construction of building shed for Annai Sathya Transport Corporation. As already discussed by us, if no other acceptable or comparable document is available for consideration, sale transaction involving small extent of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deduction. We have already noted that the value for one cent under Ex A2 is Rs.2,000/-. As already discussed by us, if no other acceptable or comparable document is available for consideration, sale transaction involving small extent of land can be considered by allowing reasonable deduction. We have already noted that the value for one cent under Ex A2 is Rs.2,000/-. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, we are constrained to deduct 40 per cent from and out of the value under Ex A2. In this way, we fix the market value at the rate of Rs.1,200/-per cent for the acquired lands." 6. The Land Acquisition Tribunal at paragraph 13 of his award, after deducting 50 per cent towards improvement for the lands sold under Ex C5 has fixed the compensation as Rs.5/- per sq.ft for the lands acquired. For enhancement of the compensation, as I have already stated the claimant has not preferred any cross objection. In the absence of any other sale deeds of the year 1990, produced by the State Government, I am of the view that there is no material to reject Ex C5 as rightly held by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal, after deducting 50 per cent towards improvement, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur. 7. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 1995 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur. No costs.