Judgment :- 1. The above appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.1999 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Namakkal made in LAOP No.144 of 1990. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land in Survey Nos.83/14, 83/16, 83/17, 83/18, 84/20, 84/21 and 84/22 measuring an extent of 1.96 acres in Kondamanaickenpatti, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award quantifying the compensation in a sum of Rs.110/-per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimants, C.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit A-1 was marked. On the side of the respondent, no witness was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-4 were marked. 5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.3/-per square foot. 6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law and weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. The Reference court simply enhanced the compensation from Rs.110/- per cent to Rs.3/-per sq.ft. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court. .7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,66,116/-relating to an extent of 1.27 acres, after excluding the remaining extent from 1.96 acres acquired. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterating the grounds of appeal, would submit that Ex.A1 relating to half cent of land in S.No.170/19 in the same village, was relied on by the lower Court, which is not the appropriate approach for assessing a large extent of 1.96 acres of agricultural land. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterating the grounds of appeal, would submit that Ex.A1 relating to half cent of land in S.No.170/19 in the same village, was relied on by the lower Court, which is not the appropriate approach for assessing a large extent of 1.96 acres of agricultural land. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owners would posit his argument that Ex.A1 refers to no doubt, half cent of land, but it is abutting the main road; the land acquired is also beside the main road. Even though Ex.A1 refers to a land situated half a mile from the land acquired, both the lands are situated abutting the main road. The purpose of acquisition should be taken into account. Here, it is for allotting free house sites for landless Adi Dravidar community people and in such case, the potential land value has to be taken into consideration. Considering all these factors alone, the lower Court awarded compensation and that too, after making enormous deductions. Accordingly, he prays for confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court. 9. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer simply relied on the document dated 10.04.1984 (No.500 of 1984) relating to an agricultural land and assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.110/-per cent, but he has not chosen to take into account the potential land value. 10. My mind is reminiscent of 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 Land Acquisition Officer and others] 11. A bare perusal of those decisions would clearly highlight and spotlight the fact that the purpose of acquisition should be taken into account while assessing the compensation. Here obviously and incontrovertibly, the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites for landless Adi Dravidar community people; the land acquired is only an agricultural land and in such a case, its potential plot value should be taken into consideration. 12. Here obviously and incontrovertibly, the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites for landless Adi Dravidar community people; the land acquired is only an agricultural land and in such a case, its potential plot value should be taken into consideration. 12. A perusal of the sales statistics relating to as many as 31 gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer would exemplify that not even a single sale item refers to the potential plot value of the land in that vicinity where the land was acquired and in such a case, obviously the Land Acquisition Officer fell into error in awarding a sum of Rs.110/-per cent. Whereas, the lower Court correctly placed reliance on Ex.A1 which emerged on 24th June 1982, so to say almost three years anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) Notification on 17.04.1985. Hence, it can never be labelled as a cooked up document brought about purely for the purpose of boosting up the value of the land and for obtaining higher compensation. 13. In this case, as per Ex.A1, per square foot of land was sold in a sum of Rs.4/-, but the Sub Court has taken the value as only Rs.3/-, over and above that 35% deduction also was made. As per Ex.A1 sale deed, value of of 225 sq.ft.: Rs.4 per sq.ft. Value per cent: 435.6 X 4 = Rs.1742.40p However, the Sub Court took into account only Rs.3/-per sq.ft. Accordingly, per cent of land comes to Rs.3 X 435.6 = Rs.1306.80p and out of that 35% was deducted and for 65% alone the land was quantified which comes to Rs.1306.80 x 65/100 = Rs.849.42p 14. The Sub Court also has not taken into consideration the notional enhanced value for three years gap existed between the emergence of Ex.A1 and the publication of Section 4(1) Notification. 15. Wherefore, from any angle if the matter is viewed, it is pellucidly and palpably clear that the Sub Court did not award exorbitant compensation warranting interference by this Court, on the contrary it awarded only just compensation which reflected the actual plot value of the land acquired as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. Hence, in this view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court are confirmed and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. No costs.