Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree made in L.A.O.P.No.121 of 1991 dated 11.07.1996 on the file of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2. It is an admitted fact that the lands in s.Nos. 98/2A2A, 98/2A3A and 102, a total extent of 57. 5 hectares of lands belonged to the respondents herein where acquired by the appellant/Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare, Krishnagiri for the purpose of proving house sites for Adi Dravidas. It is seen from the records that for the land acquisition proceedings notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 20.11.1987. After enquiry, the land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,434/-per acre. The respondents received the compensation amount under protest and at their request the matter was referred to under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. On the side of the respondent/claimants C.Ws. 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. On the side of appellant herein no witness was examined however, Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decided the market value of the acquired land at Rs.80,000/-per acre and accordingly directed the appellant herein to pay the compensation with 12% additional amount 30% solatium and interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which the referring officer has preferred this appeal. 4. Mr. V. Ravi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would contend that the Land Acquisition Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation, since the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.9,434/-per acre was enhanced to Rs.80,000/-per acre. It has been further argued that under Exs. C1 to C3 sale deeds only a smaller extent of land had been sold and therefore the Land Acquisition Tribunal could not have considered the aforesaid sales for fixing the market value. 5. Per contra, Mr. It has been further argued that under Exs. C1 to C3 sale deeds only a smaller extent of land had been sold and therefore the Land Acquisition Tribunal could not have considered the aforesaid sales for fixing the market value. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Chandran submitted that the documents marked as Exs.C1 to C3 are the sale deeds relating to similarly placed lands and all the sales referred to in the documents had taken place prior to the date of 4(1) notification and therefore there is nothing wrong in considering those documents in fixing the market value of the acquired land and further the Land Acquisition Tribunal has reduced the market value by deducting an amount towards developmental charges. Under such circumstances, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is no way exorbitant. 6. As per Ex.C1 dated 29.01.1987 an extent of 1,280 sq.ft. of land had been sold by one Kuljar Begum in favour of one Vanitha for Rs.4,000/-and similarly as per Ex.C3 dated 011. 1987, an extent of 1280 sq.ft. of land was sold to one Vasantha Kokilam by Kuljar Begum for Rs.4,000/- as per this sale deeds the land in S.No.104 had been sold. Under Ex.C2, Sale Deed Kuljar Begum had sold an extent of 2,510sq.ft. of land for Rs.9,775/-to one Srinivasan. As per Exs.C1 and C3 the lands have been sold at Rs.3.13 per sq.ft. and as per Ex.A2 3.89per sq.ft was sold. Even as per Exs.C1 and C3 the lands have been sold at Rs.1,369/- per cent. As per Exs.C1 to C3 only smaller extent of lands have been sold. Considering the same, while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Court below has deducted 1/3rd of the value towards developmental charges, since the lands described in Exs.C1 to C3 are house sites and also smaller extent of lands. 7. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.80,000/- per acre is only just and reasonable and as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondents are entitled to get 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession, 30% solatium, apart from 9% interest for one year from the date of award and subsequent interest at 15% per annum. Therefore, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment, to be interfered with. 8. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.