Judgment :- These appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Tirupattur in L.A.O.P. No.130 of 2002. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the lower Court. 2. Heard both sides. .3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: .The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 1.40 acres in S.No.111/2 in Vengili Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, for the purpose of providing housing sites to Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the .....Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the lower Court, on the side of the claimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. .5. The lower Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.15,000/-to Rs.45,000/- per acre. .6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Government preferred the appeal on the following grounds: .The judgment of the Reference Court is niggard and bereft of reasons for awarding enhancement, as it is obvious from its discussion itself that the Reference Court neither relied on the Land Acquisition Officers value nor the value as contemplated under Ex.A1, which the land owner relied on. 7. Whereas, the land owner being not satisfied with the enhancement awarded, did choose to file A.S.No.528 of 2006 for further enhancement based on Ex.A1 itself. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.45,000/-per acre and whether the land owner is entitled to further enhancement of compensation over and above Rs.45,000/- per acre. 9. Both sides reiterated their grounds of appeal and prayed for granting their respective reliefs in their appeals. .10. A perusal of the sales statistics as contained in Ex.B3 would reveal that the Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration as many as 35 sales particulars which emerged anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 18.08.1982. 9. Both sides reiterated their grounds of appeal and prayed for granting their respective reliefs in their appeals. .10. A perusal of the sales statistics as contained in Ex.B3 would reveal that the Land Acquisition Officer took into consideration as many as 35 sales particulars which emerged anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 18.08.1982. He had chosen item No.26 as the guiding factor for assessing the compensation, on the ground that the sale as contemplated in item No.26 in Ex.B3 is relating to the land in S.No.111 in which the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land. The said sale took place on 03.03.1982, so to say about five months anterior to Section 4(1) Notification. Accordingly, he fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. Whereas, the Reference Court correctly disagreed with the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer by referring to item No.23 in Ex.B3, which demonstrates that per acre was sold in a sum of Rs.27,344/- by virtue of the sale deed dated 21.01.1982. The Reference Court expressed its disagreement with the suggestion made by the land owner to place reliance on Ex.A1 the sale deed which emerged on 13th August 1981, on the ground that a small extent of land was sold under Ex.A1 and ultimately, without elaborating on what grounds he was awarding a sum of Rs.45,000/- per acre, awarded the same. 11. It is therefore just and necessary to analyse the available records to see as to what could be the just compensation awardable. In this case, Ex.A1 obviously emerged a year anterior to publication of Section 4(1) Notification and hence it cannot be stated that it is a cooked up document purely brought about for the purpose of boosting up the value of the land so as to get enhanced compensation. However, one thing should not be lost sight of. The property sold under Ex.A1 was measuring an extent of 21,455 sq.ft. of Manai over which already there was a building which was demolished and it is glaringly clear from the very description of it that it is surrounded on three sides by Main Street and one side by house and that too in a well developed colony. It is situated in S.No.94/4. Whereas, the land acquired is bearing S.No.111/2, which is an agricultural land. It is situated in S.No.94/4. Whereas, the land acquired is bearing S.No.111/2, which is an agricultural land. But, Ex.B4, the sketch would clearly exemplify that there is proximity in distance between the land acquired and the plot contemplated in Ex.A1. 12. The learned counsel for the land owner placing reliance on Ex.A1 would stress upon the fact that the purpose of acquisition is for providing free house sites for Adi Dravidar people. As per Ex.A1, the plot value of one per cent of land comes to Rs.1219.68p and after deducting one third towards development charges, the net value per cent would be higher than what the Reference Court awarded. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader would oppose on the ground that a small extent of plot area in a colony cannot be equated with an area of 1.40 acres for assessing the compensation for the land acquired. 13. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court: .(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] .(2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] (3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] .(4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] 5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Acquisition Officer and others]. 14. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that as per the dictum of the Honble Apex Court, even the sale relating to small plot of land can be taken into consideration, provided necessary deductions are effected and there should be proximity in time and distance between the land acquired and the data land. 15. The learned counsel for the land owner would cite the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1985 MLJ 116 [Director of Survey cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry and others vs. Mohammed Ghouse and others]. 15. The learned counsel for the land owner would cite the decision of the Division Bench reported in 1985 MLJ 116 [Director of Survey cum Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry and others vs. Mohammed Ghouse and others]. In my considered opinion, in the wake of the recent decisions of the Honble Apex Court, the Division Bench decision cited by the learned counsel for the land owner may not be applicable because in the said decision cited by him, it is found stated that sale of small bits of land cannot be taken as the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of acquisition of large extent of land. 16. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would state that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court admittedly stood superceded by the recent decisions of the Honble Apex Court that even sale relating to small extent can be relied, subject to various conditions as set out in those decisions. 17. As such, in this factual matrix, a balance has to be struck in between the two. The value as contemplated in Ex.A1 cannot be ushered in for the purpose of assessing compensation for 1.40 acres of land, which is an agricultural land, even though it is situated near the Adi Dravidar colony. For the purpose of the carving out plots and for providing road, drainage and park facilities, much expenditure would be required. Hence, as such the value as contemplated under Ex.A1 cannot be taken as the safe criterion for assessing the large extent of land acquired. A perusal of Ex.B3 would indicate that the sales statistics are all pertaining to agricultural lands, which had not taken into account the potential value of the lands in that area becoming habitation one. Hence, I am of the considered opinion, that a balance has to be struck between the value as contemplated in Ex.A1 and the value which was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. 18. As per Ex.A1, the following formula emerges: Ex.A1 refers to an extent of 2145 sq.ft. Sale price Rs.6,000/- Per sq.foot Rs.6000/2145 = Rs.2.80 Sale per cent 435.6 X 2.80 = Rs.1219.68/- and if viewed, for oneacre it comes to Rs.1,21,968/-. It is certainly far above Rs.15,000/-per acre as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 18. As per Ex.A1, the following formula emerges: Ex.A1 refers to an extent of 2145 sq.ft. Sale price Rs.6,000/- Per sq.foot Rs.6000/2145 = Rs.2.80 Sale per cent 435.6 X 2.80 = Rs.1219.68/- and if viewed, for oneacre it comes to Rs.1,21,968/-. It is certainly far above Rs.15,000/-per acre as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. No other sales particulars in Ex.B3 would support the valuation as contemplated in Ex.A1 because it is obvious that Ex.A1 is relating to a plot in a fully developed colony. Even after deducting 1/3rd out of Rs.1,21,968/- , it comes to Rs.81,312/-, which again is on the higher side only. As such, in my considered opinion, half of the value as contemplated in Ex.A1 should be taken to be the potential value of the land acquired and as such, it would come to Rs.60,984/-and after deducting 1/3rd, the remaining 2/3rd comes to Rs.40,656/-. However, the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-per acre. In such a case, considering the large extent of land, the award passed by the Sub Court cannot be treated as exorbitant and in view of my discussion supra and the calculation worked out, the sum of Rs.45,000/-already awarded by the Sub Court warrants no interference. In view of the ratiocination adhered to above, the question of further enhancing the compensation does not arise at all. As such, in this view of the matter, both the appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 19. The learned counsel for the land owner would make an extemporary submission to the effect that 12% interest on solatium as recently held by the Honble Supreme Court also may be awarded in this case. It is quite obvious that as per the dictum of the Honble Apex Court reported in 2002(2) LW 39 SC Sunder vs. Union of India, the land owner also is entitled to 12% interest on 30% solatium already awarded in this case.