Judgment :- This is an appeal preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer against the Judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in enhancing the compensation fixed by the referring officer. 2. The appellant is the referring officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Kangeyam. The lands in Punganthurai village, Dharapuram Taluk, Vengakkalpalayam in S.No.188/A to an extent of 0.45.5 Hectare; in S.No.180/1 to an extent of 0.76.0 Hectare; in S.No.180/2 to an extent of 0.81.5 Hectare and S.No.180/3 to an extent of 14. 0 Hectare, a total extent of 17. 0 Hectare = 7.83 acres belonging to the claimants were acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the house less Adi Dravidar Community people. According, 4(1) notification was issued on 02.01.1996 and due enquiry was conducted under the statute. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value of the said property at Rs.10,983/-per one acre. Aggrieved by the fixation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had requested for reference before the Sub Court / land Tribunal at Dharapuram and accordingly, it was referred. 3. The learned Tribunal / Special Judge, Dharapuram had taken the case on file in LAOP No.3 of 1996 and, after a full-fledged enquiry, had fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.70,000/- per one acre and also awarded the statutory benefits to the claimants. Aggrieved against the fixation of market value by the lower Court, the Land Acquisition Officer had preferred the appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Ravi, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) and Mr. D. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Claimant. 5. Mr. Ravi, the learned Additional Government Pleader (A.S.) would submit in his argument that the lower Court had erred in enhancing the compensation exorbitantly from Rs.10,983/- per one acre to Rs.70,000/-per one acre without any reason. He would further submit in his argument that the documents relied upon by the lower Court in Exs.A1 and A2 were not relevant for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. He would further submit that the acquired lands were undeveloped lands on the date of acquisition and there was no improvement from the date of sales by the claimant till the date of acquisition and, therefore, the same value as fixed by the land Acquisition Officer should have been up held by the lower Court. He would further submit that the acquired lands were undeveloped lands on the date of acquisition and there was no improvement from the date of sales by the claimant till the date of acquisition and, therefore, the same value as fixed by the land Acquisition Officer should have been up held by the lower Court. He would further submit in his argument that the lower Court had awarded more compensation than what was claimed by the claimant, and, therefore, the award and judgment passed by the lower Court in fixing the market value at Rs.70,000/-per one acre has to be set aside and the market value suggested by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.10,983/-may be fixed as the correct market value. He would therefore, request the Court to set aside the judgment and award passed by the lower Court and therefore, the appeal be allowed. 6. Mr. D. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the lower Court had correctly appraised the evidence adduced before it and had fixed the market value at Rs.70,000/-per one acre. He would further submit that the Land Acquisition Officer had not scrutinized several data sales prior to the date of 4(1) notification but had simply adopted the value of the property mentioned in the sale deed in which the claimant was the purchaser of the acquired lands and it had not followed the sale deeds executed by the seller of the claimant to other persons as the correct market value of the said properties. He would further submit that the lower Court had correctly followed the value mentioned in the documents produced by the claimant and had fixed the same at Rs.70,000/-per one acre even though yet another document referred the value at Rs.90,000/-per one acre. He would therefore request the Court that the Judgment and decree passed by the lower Court are sound and are not liable to be interfered whereas the proceedings adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing an award has to be condemned for not referring to the available sale deed other than the sale deed through which the acquired lands were purchased by the claimant. Therefore, he would request the Court that the appeal be dismissed. 7. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both sides. 8. Therefore, he would request the Court that the appeal be dismissed. 7. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both sides. 8. On a careful understanding of the submissions made by both sides, I could understand that the lands acquired for the purpose of allotting house sites to the house less Adi Dravidar community people was entirely belonging to the claimant herself. She had purchased the entire 7 acres 83 cents in the respective Survey Numbers from P.W.2 Nachimuthu Gounder for a sum of Rs.86,000/-on 9. 1995. Subsequently, the acquisition was effected and 4(1) notification was issued on 02.01.1996. There is no dispute that the said sale deed through which the claimant had purchased the entire property of 7 acres 83 cents was within the ambit of one year period prior to the 4(1) notification. However, other lands are also available for assessing the market value of the land acquired. Exs.C1 and C2 are the properties sold by the seller of the claimant. Ex.C1 is the property sold by Nachimuthu Gounder vide sale deed dated 010. 1995 to one Arul Vadivan for a sum of Rs.35,000/-for an extent of 50 cents. It is produced as Ex.C1. Similarly, in a sale deed dated 310. 1995 the same Nachimuthu Gounder, who was examined as P.W.2, sold a similar land of 50 cents to the same Arul Vadivan for a sum of Rs.45,000/- through Ex.C2. These two documents are subsequent to the sale deed executed by the person from whom the claimant had purchased the lands acquired. The land Acquisition Officer had not referred or discussed in respect of the said two documents, namely, Exs.C1 and C2. He was examined as R.W.1. He would admit in his evidence that the lands in Exs. C1 and C2 were listed in the data sales and he has not followed the value fixed in those documents. Further he would admit in his evidence that he had obtained the guideline value in the lands in and around the acquired lands and it was given as Rs.2,00,000/-per one acre and he had not considered the said valuation as there was no necessity for the same. Further he would admit in his evidence that he had obtained the guideline value in the lands in and around the acquired lands and it was given as Rs.2,00,000/-per one acre and he had not considered the said valuation as there was no necessity for the same. Therefore, we could see that the value of the acquired lands would be at Rs.70,000/- per one acre as per Ex.C1 and Rs.90,000/- per acre as per Ex.C2 and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as per the guideline value and these value has not been followed by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the market value. The lower Court had considered the said value of the lands mentioned in Exs.C1 and C2 as applicable for fixing the value of the lands acquired. It had also considered that the value fixed in Ex.C2 is more value than the value fixed for Ex.C1 and since 30% solatium is also to be awarded to the claimant, the lessor value of Rs.70,000/- mentioned in Ex.C1 was adopted for fixing the market value. It is the dictum of our Honble Apex Court that the highest market value prevailed at the time of acquisition of the land should have been followed for fixing the correct market value of the lands acquired. The said dictum of our Honble Apex Court reported in 1969 (1) MLJ 45 between Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras reads as follows: "... ... .... where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. ... ... .... certain deductions will have to be made in respect of betterment levy because under Section 25 of the Town Planning Act betterment levy is a charge on the land .. ... ..." Therefore, the lower Court ought to have fixed the value at Rs.90,000/- per one acre towards the market value of the acquired lands. The lower Court was right in not accepting the guideline value since the guideline value cannot depict the correct market value of the lands which could be ascertained as a price given by the willing buyer to the willing seller. Therefore, the price mentioned in the documents could alone speak to the value of the property. The lower Court was right in not accepting the guideline value since the guideline value cannot depict the correct market value of the lands which could be ascertained as a price given by the willing buyer to the willing seller. Therefore, the price mentioned in the documents could alone speak to the value of the property. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that for the purpose of paying the lessor stamp duty, the value of the property have been shown as less and actual value of the property would be high and, therefore, the market value as fixed for payment of stamp duty should have been fixed as market value of the land. The said theory of evading the payment of stamp duty will not be a legal one and such evidence adduced on the part of P.W.2 would be against the documentary evidence entered by him. It is certainly prohibited under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the value mentioned in the document alone is valid and should be followed in the fixation of the market value for the lands acquired. 9. For the aforesaid discussion, we could see that the lower Court had fixed the market value of Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.90,000/-as amply proved by the claimant through Ex.C2. However, there was no Cross Appeal filed by the claimant in this appeal for enhancing compensation nor separate appeal was filed by the petitioner for enhancing the compensation. Therefore, this Court has to confirm the judgment and award passed by the lower Court in fixing the market value at Rs.70,000/-per one acre. The claimant was also given the benefit of Section 23, 23(A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by the lower Court. Therefore, I could see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Court and, accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court are confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In fine the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court. There will be no order as to costs.