Judgment :- (R. BANUMATHI, J) 1. Being aggrieved by enhancement of compensation from Rs.12.50 to Rs.3000/- per cent for the lands acquired for formation of New Satellite Town known as Maraimalai Nagar, Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has filed this Appeal. 2. Brief facts are that an extent of 239.62 acres including S.F.No.58 measuring an extent of 5.80 acres of 78, Chithamanur village was acquired for formation of a New Satellite town known as Maraimalai Nagar. Draft notification under Sec.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was approved in the Government Gazette on 22.8.1974 and published in the Gazette on 16.10.1974. Enquiry under Sec.5(A) of the Act was conducted on 26.07.1977. Declarations under Secs.6 and 7 of the Act were approved in G.O.Ms.No.1665 Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 12.10.1977. LAO has taken 21 sales during the period of three years prior to the date of publication of notification under Sec.4(1) notification. Upon analysis of the sale deeds, LAO has taken S.F.No.43/1A as data land. Under sale deed dated 12.04.1972, an extent of 0.40 cents in S.F.No.43/1A was sold for Rs.500/- and per cent is calculated at Rs.12.50 and LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired lands and awarded compensation of Rs.22,074/- with 12% additional market value and 30% solatium totalling into Rs.44,839/- and passed the Award No.6/1988 on 29.07.1988. 3. On objection raised by the land owner, reference under Sec.18 of the Act was made. Before the Reference Court, Claimant-Ramadoss was examined as CW1. One Ponnusamy, Civil Engineer was examined as CW2. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked on the side of the Claimant. On the side of Referring Officer, one Balaraman, who was then working as Special Tahsildar (LA) was examined as RW1. Copy of Award No.6/1988 and FMB Plan were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 respectively. 4. Ex.C3 is the correspondence between the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and Government Advocate. In Ex.C3, it is stated that the acquired lands allotted to Ford Company were paid compensation of Rs.3,000/- per cent. Based upon Ex.C3, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,000/- per cent and Reference Court has also ordered 12% additional market value, 30% solatium and interest at 9% for one year from the date of possession and thereafter at 15% p.a. till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved with the enhancement of compensation, LAO has filed the present appeal. 5. Being aggrieved with the enhancement of compensation, LAO has filed the present appeal. 5. The point falling for consideration in this Appeal is whether the market value of the acquired land i.e. Rs.3000/- per cent fixed by the Reference Court is reasonable? 6. For enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,000/- per cent, Reference Court referred to the alleged compromise in the High Court recorded in A.S.No.1213/1994 (arising out of LAOP.Nos.134/1991). The observation of the Reference Court reads as under:- " ..... that after filing LAOP 134/91 an amount of Rs.100/- was fixed per cent and that the High Court in a compromise in that case fixed Rs.3000/- which was admitted by the officials concerned. Ex.C3 is the document for proving the contention. ...." 7. For enhancing the market value to Rs.3000/- per cent, Reference Court mainly relied upon Ex.C3 – copy of letter correspondence between the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to the Government Advocate, copy of which has been sent to the Claimant-Ramadoss Naidu also. Referring to Ex.C3, Reference Court has formed an impression that as if all the lands in Maraimalai Nagar under "Maraimalai Nagar Scheme", compensation is to be enhanced to Rs.3000/- per cent. In this regard, the observation of the Reference Court reads as under:- " ..... If this document [Ex.C3] is taken for consideration the judgment which was taken by the Referring Officer for fixing Rs.12.50 per cent would not be taken into consideration (sic). Since the Land Acquisition Officer himself has admitted the adjacent land valued Rs.3000/- per cent. It is also proper to accept in this case also." 8. Now the grievance of the Appellant is that Ford Company was insisting for early handing over of the lands allotted to it and since the land owners have gone to the Court, to arrive at the solution, Memo of Understanding [MOU] was signed between the Ford Company and CMDA. Pursuant to which, land holders was asked to withdraw the Petition from the Court and settle their grievances by negotiation. Further case of Appellant is that the land value of Rs.3000/- per cent was given only to the lands allotted to Ford Company and the same will not apply to the other lands. Pursuant to which, land holders was asked to withdraw the Petition from the Court and settle their grievances by negotiation. Further case of Appellant is that the land value of Rs.3000/- per cent was given only to the lands allotted to Ford Company and the same will not apply to the other lands. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that Claimants acquired lands i.e. S.No.58, Chithamanur village has not been allotted to Ford Company and therefore, Reference Court was not right in enhancing the market value to Rs.3000/- per cent. 9. Earlier, in this Appeal in A.S.No.217/1994 by the Judgment dated 20.04.2004 [PDDJ & ZHJ], compensation was reduced to Rs.374/- per cent from Rs.3000/- per cent. Later, Appellant has filed Petition in C.M.P.No.13611/2004 in A.S.No.217/2004 to further reduce the compensation. By the Judgment dated 15.10.2004, the Division Bench [PDDJ & ZHJ] after referring to the Judgment in A.S.No.1213/1994 (arising out of LAOP.No.134/1991) further reduced the compensation to Rs.100/- per cent. The said order of modification of the compensation by the Division Bench dated 15.10.2004 was challenged by the Claimant before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7114/2008 arising out of SLP No.18918/2006. Setting aside the said Judgment of the Division Bench [PDDJ & ZHJ], the honble Supreme Court has remitted the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. 10. By reading of the Judgment of Reference Court, we find that Reference Court has mainly relied upon Ex.C3 and the impression formed by the Reference Court is based upon Ex.C3. Apart from Ex.C3 and Ex.C1-valuation statement, hardly, there is any evidence available enabling us to ascertain the market value at the time of 4(1) notification [16.10.1974]. The acquisition was of the year 1974 and since the matter is remitted back to the High Court by the Honble Supreme Court, at this distant point of time, we are not inclined to remit the matter back to the Reference Court for consideration of the matter afresh. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for Claimant submitted that Claimant is to be afforded an opportunity to adduce further oral and documentary evidence. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in case if any such opportunity is afforded to the Claimant to adduce further evidence, sufficient opportunity has to be given to the Land Acquisition Officer as well as CMDA to rebut the evidence and also by adducing further evidence if need be. 12. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in case if any such opportunity is afforded to the Claimant to adduce further evidence, sufficient opportunity has to be given to the Land Acquisition Officer as well as CMDA to rebut the evidence and also by adducing further evidence if need be. 12. Order 41, R.25 CPC contemplates that the first Appellate Court if deemed fit shall direct the trial Court to take the additional evidence required. Since there is total lack of evidence, we feel it necessary to afford an opportunity to both sides to let in oral and documentary evidence to arrive at the valuation of the property at the time of Sec.4(1) notification (16.10.1974). Reference Court/Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu is directed to record evidence of Claimant both oral and documentary and also afford opportunity to LAO as well as CMDA to cross examine the witnesses. Reference Court shall also afford opportunity to the Land Acquisition Officer and CMDA to adduce further evidence with regard to the then market value prevailing at the time of 4(1) notification [16.10.1974] and also afford opportunity to the LAO in explaining Ex.C3-copy of letter correspondence. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Reference Court/Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu is directed to record further evidence [both oral and documentary] and send the recorded evidence and documents if any marked by both parties to this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Reference Court is also directed to send back the records sent by the High Court along with recorded evidence. Both parties are directed to co-operative with the Reference Court for recording evidence and marking of documents if any. Both parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court/Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu on 16.07.2010.