Judgment : Per S. TAMILVANAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P. No. 60 of 2005 dated 31.3.2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. 2. It is an admitted case that the land in T.S. No. 34-38 and T.S. No. 40-41 having an extent of 5,899 sq.ft. situated at Mohamadiarpet, Villupuram Taluk was acquired by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer, for the purpose of conversion of Broadgauge Railway line. for which an enquiry was conducted and as per award No. 2/04-05 dated 15.2.2005, an amount of Rs. 14,87,207.88 was fixed for the value of the Land. The Land Acquisition proceedings were communicated by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the same was approved under Na.Ka.A1/23501/02 dated 4.7.2003. The respondent/claimant had received the compensation amount under protest and at his request the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act‘). 3. The respondent had claimed Rs. 178.40 per sq.ft. on par with the other lands acquired by the authorities and Rs. 6,00,000/- for the building constructed by him on the acquired land. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 73.46 per sq.ft.. Accordingly, the total amount ordered was Rs. 9,29,343.56. After deducting the amount already paid a sum of Rs. 78,031/- was ordered to be paid to the appellant. 4. Ms. Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that considering the urgency of gauge conversion of the Railway line, even before the publishing of 4(1) notification, under the Act, the respondent took over possession of the property and subsequently the building was also demolished. Only a sum of Rs. 5,04,940/-was paid as initial part payment. Subsequent to that, only after filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 7657 of 2005 and getting an order from this Court on 10.1.2003, direction was given to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal and accordingly reference was made on 16.8.2003 by way of the notification under Section 4(1), on 18.8.2003. 5. It is seen that respondent/Claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-10 were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. 5. It is seen that respondent/Claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 to A-10 were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of the sale deed dated 10.5.1999 executed in favour of one Jahankhan by Basheer Ahmed and another was marked as ExhibitB1. It is not in dispute that the acquired land was located in a prime residential area, within the Municipal limit with a madras traced residential building. Exhibit A-10 is a sketch wherein the acquired land and other lands on the West were shown. Both the lands are abutting the Villupuram in Chennai Railway track. The respondents lands are in T.S. No. 38 and T.S. No. 41, abutting the Railway track on the East and the other lands already acquired by the Highways Department for forming subway are on the Western Side. It is not in dispute that for the aforesaid land acquired for the purpose of forming subway, compensation was fixed at Rs. 178.40 per sq.ft. as found by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that the Revenue Divisional Officer had recommended the same market value for the acquired land, as fixed by the Highways Department. Though it was recommended by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, that the award for compensation for the acquired land on par with the other land that had been acquired already by the High Ways Department. Hence, it is seen that there is disparity in fixing the market value of the land, since for the acquired land it has been fixed at Rs. 73.46 per sq.ft., whereas for the other land it was fixed at Rs. 178.40 per sq.ft. For the purpose of fixing the market value of the land, the claimant has produced copy of various sale deeds relating to sale of house sites in the locality which were marked as Exhibits A-3 to A-6. Having fixed the market value for a similarly placed land at Rs. 178.40 per sq.ft. for the other land it is not open to the appellant to fix the market value of the acquired land only at Rs. 73.46 per sq.ft. It is not in dispute that both are similarly placed developed house sites. 7. Having fixed the market value for a similarly placed land at Rs. 178.40 per sq.ft. for the other land it is not open to the appellant to fix the market value of the acquired land only at Rs. 73.46 per sq.ft. It is not in dispute that both are similarly placed developed house sites. 7. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation for the acquired land on par with the market value fixed for the land that was acquired by the Highways Department for forming subway nearby the Railway Track on the western side and therefore I find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below with regard to the fixing of the market value of the acquired land. 8. So far as the value of the building is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the value at Rs. 5,00,000/-. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has decided the value of the building at Rs. 5,00,000/-without any evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent being the claimant, the burden was on him to establish that the value of the building had been at Rs. 5,00,000/-on the date of acquisition of the property. 9. Per contra, Ms. Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there was no breathing time for the respondent, since as an emergency measure the respondent was asked to vacate the building for the purpose of demolishing and only an initial amount of Rs. 5,04,940/- was paid to him. Immediately the Madras traced building belonged to the respondent was also demolished by the appellant officials. According to her, the building was worth more than Rs. 6,00,000/- on the date of acquiring the property. It is not in dispute that the respondent had taken possession of the property even, prior to the date of 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, on account of the urgency of conversion of the Railway line between the Chennai to Villupuram. Under such circumstances, the authorities could have availed the service of an expert to prepare the valuation based on the super structure and could have taken photographs of the building, in the presence of witnesses of that locality, has the value for the building could have been assessed with the help of a surveyor. Under such circumstances, the authorities could have availed the service of an expert to prepare the valuation based on the super structure and could have taken photographs of the building, in the presence of witnesses of that locality, has the value for the building could have been assessed with the help of a surveyor. After demolishing the Madras traced building of the appellant, it would not be just and proper on the part of the appellant to shift that the burden on the respondent, to establish the value of the building that was in existence, on the acquired land, prior to the demolition. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court below has fixed the market value of the Madras traced building at Rs. 5,00,000/-. On the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be interfered with in this appeal and further the Tribunal has awarded 12% additional amount of the market value 30% solatium and 9% interest for one year from the date of award and 15% subsequent interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Considering the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel with reference to the evidence both oral and documentary available on record and also the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment to be interfered with in this appeal. In the result, confirming the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below, this appeal is dismissed.