Judgment :- This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. 2. 0.52.0 hectares of land in R.S.No.300/4B at Elumathur, Erode Taluk, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing houses for the people belonging to Adi-Dravidar community. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedures, had published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the gazette dated 10.07.1997. On the basis of the data land, which has been exhibited as Ex.R.3 before the Tribunal, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.44,846/- per acre. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award No.9 of 1992 dated 25.08.1992, the claimant had filed his objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as C.W.1 and no document was exhibited on the side of the claimant. On the other hand on the side of the Referring Officer R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.44,846/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre with usual solatium and interest etc., in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which necessitated the Government to prefer this appeal. 5. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the judgment in LAOP.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 6. Point:- The Land Acquisition Tribunal has set aside the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the data land (Ex.R.3) is situated far away from the land acquired by the government. 6. Point:- The Land Acquisition Tribunal has set aside the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the data land (Ex.R.3) is situated far away from the land acquired by the government. But in the absence of any document produced by the claimant to show that the lands which are situated nearby to the land acquired by the government having same potentiality and similarity in nature, but only on the basis of the oral evidence let in by the respondent has enhanced and fixed the compensation as Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. At para 8 of its judgment, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has observed that as per Sl.No.41 of the sale deed referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award, 1 acre of land was sold for Rs.1,08,200/- and as per the sale deed Sl.No.44, 1 acre of land was sold for Rs.1,67,000/- and that the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected those two documents – sale deeds on the ground that the land sold under those documents are situated far away from the land acquired. But R.W.1 has not mentioned the distance between the land sold under the above said sale deeds Sl.No.41 & 44 from the land acquired. So, on the said ground the Land Acquisition Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be sustainable. Again on the basis of the oral evidence of the claimant, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has observed that in S.No.77/2 & 82, the Government has acquired the land in the year 1995 at the rate of Rs.2,26,000/- per acre, and fixed the compensation for the land acquired in the year 1992 as Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The method adopted by the Land Acquisition Tribunal for fixing the compensation for the land acquired is unknown to law. The Land Acquisition Tribunal ought to have fixed the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of the documents ie., sale deeds produced by both sides. In this case, the claimant has not produced any document before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. But on the other hand on the side of the Referring Officer sale deed for the data land was produced and exhibited as Ex.R.3. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.7 of 1996 is liable to be set aside. Point is answered accordingly. But on the other hand on the side of the Referring Officer sale deed for the data land was produced and exhibited as Ex.R.3. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.7 of 1996 is liable to be set aside. Point is answered accordingly. 7. In fine, the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree in LAOP.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below with a direction to dispose of the same within two months from date of receipt of copy of this order. Both sides are at liberty to let in further evidence. At this juncture the learned Special Government Pleader would state that as per the order in CMP.No.14642 of 2001 in A.S.No.895 of 2001, this Court has permitted the claimant to withdraw 50% of the award amount deposited by the Government to the credit of LAOP.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. The claimant is directed to furnish security for the said amount within a month from this date (19.08.2008). After disposal of LAOP.No.7 of 1996, parties can move before this Court for getting necessary orders for disbursement of the award amount, if there is no appeal preferred against the judgment in LAOP.No.7 of 1996. No costs.