Judgment 1. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and Mr.K.Shakespeare for Mr.S.Subramani, learned counsel for Respondents 2, 6 and 7. Respondents 1 and 5 died and notice was not served on third respondent. Though no LRs were brought on record for respondents 1 and 5 and the third respondent was not served, it is unnecessary to serve those respondents, since the trial court did not grant any relief to them and no cross appeal was filed either by those respondents or by the LRs and hence they need not be heard. 2. The appellant is the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Land Acquisition Officer, Chennai City. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in LAOP No.30 of 1990, dated 12. 1995 on the file of the learned 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The land of the claimants to an extent of 2 grounds and 2256 sq.ft. was acquired at the rate of Rs.22240/- per ground for the purpose of widening of the Kilpauk Garden Road coming within the Corporation of Chennai. The claimants objection to the acquisition and claimed that Rs.50000/-was the market value on the date of notification under Section 4(1) made in G.O.Ms.No.1306, (Rural Development and Land Acquisition Department), dated 26. 1978. After following due procedure, an Award was passed on 17. 1986. On claimants objection regarding lower compensation, the matter was referred to the Reference Court. The reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) was taken on file as LAOP No.19 of 1989. The reference court held that respondents 1,3,4 and 5 have no claim for compensation and compensation was eligible only for respondents 2 and 7. 3. The said Reference under Section 18(1) was registered as LAOP No.30 of 1990. Before the Reference court on behalf of claimants, respondent No.7, C.V.Ramamurthi was examined as C.W.1 and on their side, five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.5. On the side of the appellant, one P.V.Krishnamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were were filed and they were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The reference court held that respondent 2,6 and 7 were entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,92,187/-. This was on the basis that the market value in that area per ground was Rs.75,000/-. On the side of the appellant, one P.V.Krishnamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were were filed and they were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The reference court held that respondent 2,6 and 7 were entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,92,187/-. This was on the basis that the market value in that area per ground was Rs.75,000/-. On the Award amount, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and 12% interest and 5% additional compensation. Since the land of the claimants in the front side was affected from public access and they suffered for eight years from the date of notification till date, Rs.25000/- compensation and for delay in payment, another Rs.10000/- was ordered. Apart from that the normal interest was also directed to be paid. With reference to damages to the trees, no compensation was ordered. It is as against the judgment and decree, this appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The appellant raised a ground that the compensation ordered by the court below is on high side. The claimants themselves had demanded only Rs.50000/-per ground. Therefore, the Reference Court cannot order more than what was claimed. It is especially when Section 25 was amended by Tamil Nadu Act 16/1997. It is also contended that relevant dates were not taken note of. But, the trial court had considered the entire evidence on record and considered Ex.C.1 which is the property at Taylors Road adjacent to the present road where the value was Rs.55000/- per ground. The property in Ex.C.2 was sold at Rs.75,000/-per ground. Ex.R.1 cannot be relied on as it was introduced during the period between Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 Award. It is in that view, the evidence produced on the side of the appellant was rejected. 5. This court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. The contention that the reference court cannot award more than the amount claimed by the claimant also cannot be accepted. Under Section 25 introduced by Amendment Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16/1997), it was declared that compensation awarded by the court cannot be more than what was claimed by a person interested. But, that amendment was introduced long after the Section 4(1) notification and also after the reference was made under Section 18(1). 6. Under Section 25 introduced by Amendment Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16/1997), it was declared that compensation awarded by the court cannot be more than what was claimed by a person interested. But, that amendment was introduced long after the Section 4(1) notification and also after the reference was made under Section 18(1). 6. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008) 10 SCC 797 on the basis of the protection under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, held that the value determined by public document in terms of Section 23 was acceptable and the value can be higher than what was claimed. The following passages found in paragraphs 4 to 6 from the said judgment may be usefully extracted below: "4. The land acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.13,100 per acre for dry land and Rs.1000 for phot kharab land. On a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the trial court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.36,200 per acre. On appeal, the High Court referred to the yield notification and price list issued by the competent authority as also the average price of both the crops in relation to the relevant year and concluded that market price of the land comes to Rs.66,550 per acre. However, the High Court refused to award compensation at the said rate on the premise that the appellant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.58,500 per acre. 5. Wehave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the impugned order the High Court, after taking note of the yield notification issued by the Government and price list notified by the competent authority for crops (both are public documents) concluded that market value of the land is Rs.66,550 per acre. Therefore, the appellant’s omission to make appropriate claim before the High Court after paying the requisite court fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bona fide. 6. In our view, the High Court should have, after taking note of the peculiar facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded higher compensation to the appellants subject to the condition of paying the balance court fee. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably modified. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably modified. 7. In thelight of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the court below. Hence, the Appeal Suit will stand dismissed. No costs.