Judgment :- Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for appellant, Mr.H.Devendran, learned counsel appearing for first respondent and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned cousnel appearing for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 2. This appeal is filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition against the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.301 of 1987, dated 19.1.2006 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee. 3. The first respondent is the Trust which owned lands in Survey No.168/1 to an extent of 0.20 cents in Maduravoyal village. The said land was acquired for the purpose of K.K.Nagar extension scheme executed by the second respondent TNHB. Due procedure was followed and the award was passed in Award No.1/84, dated 7.9.1984. The acquisition officer fixed the value at Rs.52/- per cent. The respondent Trust sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was referred. Thes said reference was taken on file in LAOP No.301 of 1987. Before the Reference Court, on the side of the respondent claimant one Lakshmi Narayanan was examined as C.W.1 and two documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.2. On the side of the appellant herein, one Kanagasabapathy was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of the Award in Award No.1 of 1984 was marked as Ex.R.1. O the side of the requisition body, no evidence was let in. 4. The reference court found that the land is situated adjacent to the Trunk Road. It is in the developed residential locality. Schools, hospitals, temples, churches were also situated nearby. The land has potential value. The adjacent land was sold at the rate of Rs.25000/-per ground of 2400 sq.ft. The claimants land was approximately 4 grounds and therefore, they thought that it would fetch Rs.1 lakh. The worth of trees and buildings were also undervalued. Therefore, the reference court held that the compensation fixed by the authority was on the lower side. Hence, it enhanced the compensation to Rs.1000/- per cent with 30% solatium. Whatever amount already paid was directed to be deducted. Further the claimant was entilted to 9% interest for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% interest for the subsequent years till the date of deposit. It is against this judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 5. Whatever amount already paid was directed to be deducted. Further the claimant was entilted to 9% interest for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% interest for the subsequent years till the date of deposit. It is against this judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 5. Pending the appeal, this court by an order dated 27.11.2006 granted an interim stay and directed the petitioner/appellant to deposit the decreetal amount failing which interim stay was directed to be vacated without further reference. Though the appellant subsequently filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2007 for modifying the order, the said application came to be dismissed. It was claimed in the modification application that the appellant was not able to take possession of land as it has not been handed over by the land owner since it is in the custody of the Official Trustee, High Court. It is also asserted that the compensation will be paid only after possession was delivered. This court however held that there are other provisions of law under which possession can be taken. Hence that application was dismissed. 6. The order of reference court was assailed on the ground that the order of this court dated 11.12.2003 had not reached finality and the exemplar claim has no nexus to the land to be acquired. 7. The short question that has to be decided is whether the order of the Reference Court is to be set aside? 8. In the present case, the Reference court has taken into account two documents filed by the claimant including the judgment of this court. Further, the land is situated in the commercial hub. Hence the approach made by the Reference Court is in order and it did not call for interference. It is also supported by well laid principles laid down by Courts. In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court. 9. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Sangunthala Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 considered the scope of Section 23 and after referring to its previous decisions, in paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34 held as follows: "24. 9. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Sangunthala Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 considered the scope of Section 23 and after referring to its previous decisions, in paragraphs 24 to 26 and 34 held as follows: "24. In the light of the above material facts this Court feels that the presence of a number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites. The basic purpose that has been traced out in the evidence and as admitted by the RWs is that the lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up residential quarters. As a portion of the land is being considered as house site, the adjoining lands have the potential of being put in better use as house sites in the near future. 25. The other important factor is the proximity of the plots to two residential colonites i.e. Anna Nagar and Gandhi Nagar. As it has come on record that Anna Nagar Colony has about 50-60 houses and Gandhi Nagar Colony has about 150 houses, as such it is reasonable and proper to conclude that the present lands under dispute were near the residential colonites. 26. It should also be taken into consideration that the disputed lands were situated near the factory premises and further were adjoining the main road which connects Tanmag Road. As such the aforesaid lands are potential house sites. ..... 34. In view of the admitted case that the lands acquired were potential house sites we do not agree with the views taken by the High Court while calculating the compensation. R-13 and R-15 are the two sale deeds containing particulars of the sale transactions held three years prior to the Section 4(1) notification. The Reference Court after close perusal of the aforesaid documents held that the same disclose that out of more than 100 sales, a number of sales in respect of the lands were sold as house sites in Thathaiyangarpatti Village and the adjacent survey numbers in Thekkampatty Village were also sold as house sites." 10. Again, the Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 794 while dealing with the order of compensation under Sections 23 and 54, in paragraphs 23 to 27 held as follows: "23. Again, the Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 794 while dealing with the order of compensation under Sections 23 and 54, in paragraphs 23 to 27 held as follows: "23. It is clear from the above decisions and discussion that merely on the basis of "circle rate", market value for acquired lands cannot be fixed but, at the same time, as observed earlier, the locality and the prevailing circumstances are relevant for determining the real value of the land. We have adverted to the assertion of the claimants about the proximity and various other attending circumstances. It is seen from the evidence of PW2, power-of-attorney holder of the appellants that the acquired plot was located in the midst of commercial properties, had commercial potentiality and for similar properties, the rates in the locality were not less than Rs.6000/- per square metre. He tendered evidence and placed documents Exts.PW2/1 to PW2/11 which include Eicher City map. PW 2 has also highlighted that the plot was located within the developed commercial hub of Karol Bagh having all facilities. 24. As rightly observed by the High Court, the Reference Court overlooked the evidence on record that after the property was purchased by the appellants in 1961, considerable development in and around the area had taken place. The acquired property was purchased by the appellants in the year 1961 and it is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings started in the year 1983 i.e. after a period of 22 years from the date of the Section 4(1) notification (9-5-1983). 25. The High Court has also relied on Ram Lal Bansiwal Vs. Union of India, a decision of fixing market value @ Rs.2320 per square yard for commercial plots based on the circle rates. When the appeal was carried to this Court, by decision dated 17-2-1997, this Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.3000 per square yard by observing that the land was located in a commercial hub and was adjoining to a petrol pump. It is pointed out tht the said decision relates to a Chowkri Mubarkabad being a locality adjacent to Karol Bagh situated by the side of main Rohtak Road. It is also demonstrated that the same is in close proximity to Karol Bagh area and the plot in question was located in the midst of Karol Bagh. 26. It is pointed out tht the said decision relates to a Chowkri Mubarkabad being a locality adjacent to Karol Bagh situated by the side of main Rohtak Road. It is also demonstrated that the same is in close proximity to Karol Bagh area and the plot in question was located in the midst of Karol Bagh. 26. Though in the award, the Land Acquisition Collector has mentioned that the plot is 2 km away from the commercial area in the Karol Bagh, admittedly, the very same Joshi Memorial Hospital was running on the land under acquisition since 19701971 and the hospital was paying rent to the pattedars/owners. This information has been mentioned in the synopsis field by the Union of India in their Civil Appeal No.8637 of 2002. 27. We have also verified the Delhi Government Map Survey of 1982. On going through the location as found in the government map, the assertion of PW 1, an officer of the Government, PW 2, power-of-attorney holder of the appellants, various activities in and around the plot and considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector relied on the three property transactions relating to 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 and not nearer to the date of notification under Section 4(1) i.e. 9.5.1983 and also of the fact that even on the date of notification the very same hospital i.e. Joshi Memorial Hospital was running on the land, we hold that even if we eschew "circle rate", the amount determined by the High court is just, reasonable and acceptable. For the same reasons and in the absence of additional material, we are not inclined to increase the market value as claimed by the appellant claimants." 11. In the light of the above, this Appeal Suit will stand dismissed with costs.