Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government against the decree and Judgment in LAOP.No.63 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. 2. The Government have acquired 0.05.0 hectares of land in S.No.344/10B, and one half of 0.07.05 in S.No.344/8 totaling 0.12.05 hectares or 0.35 ½ cents in Essyanur Village, Arcot Taluk, for the purpose of providing house to the people belonging to the Adi Dravida community. 3. After observing the formalities, a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition At was issued on 23. 1998. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of data land produced before him had awarded a compensation of Rs.82.01 per cent. Aggrieved by the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant has filed his objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Tribunal. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as C.W.1 and the vendee under Ex.C.2 was examined as C.W.2 and Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 were marked on the side of the claimants. An Assistant, in the office of Special Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6 were marked on the side of the respondent. The Land Acquisition Tribunal after going through the evidence both oral and documentary has held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.82.01 per cent is too meagre, has enhanced the same and fixed the compensation as Rs.425/- per cent from Rs.82.01 per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the Government has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant. The learned Tribunal has rejected Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 produced by the claimants on the ground that the lands covered under Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 are situated faraway from the land acquired by the Government and that there was no material placed before the Court to show that the land sold under Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 and the land acquired by the Government are similar in all aspects. The sale deed in respect of the data land was marked as Ex.R.2. The sale deed in respect of the data land was marked as Ex.R.2. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has also rejected the said data land – Ex.R.2 on the ground that the nature of the data land is entirely different from the land acquired by the government. Further the respondent has also failed to examine the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the land sold under Ex.R.2 ie., data land and the land acquired are similar in nature. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has also rejected the evidence of C.W.1 on the ground that there is no documentary evidence produced on the side of the claimants to show that there was an annual income of Rs.10,000/- derived from the land acquired by the Government. From Ex.R.5 – Adangal, it was revealed that acacia trees were present in the land acquired by the Government, and there was no cultivation carried out by the claimants in the lands acquired at the time of acquisition. After rejecting the claimants demand of Rs.2,750/- per cent towards compensation for the land acquired, without any basis the Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.425/- per cent. Even though the Special Government Pleader undertook to produce relevant sale deed to show that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is on the higher side, he has not produced any sale deed before this Court. I am of the view that without any evidence to show that a cent of land near the land acquired will fetch a price of Rs.425/-, the award of the Land Acquisition Tribunal enhancing the compensation from Rs.82.01 per cent to Rs.425/- per cent cannot be upheld to be reasonable. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the decree and judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.63 of 1995 is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal for denova trial. 5. In fine, the appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.63 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. In fine, the appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.63 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall give sufficient time to both the parties to produce evidence both oral and documentary and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.