Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. A.S.Nos.569 to 571 of 1998 were filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), C.M.D.A., Chennai-600 032, challenging a common judgment and decree, dated 27.3.1996 passed in LAOP Nos.58 and 60 of 1986 and 101 of 1987. The respondents/claimants in AS No.571 of 1998 challenging the very same judgment and decree in LAOP No.101 of 1987 filed an appeal in A.S.No.106 of 1998. Likewise, the respondent in A.S.No.569 of 1998 has filed A.S.No.91 of 2000 challenging the very same judgment and decree in LAOP No.58 of 1986. 3. These Appeal Suits were filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as the Acquiring Authority and claimants/land owners. Pleadings set were printed and circulated. The original records were also circulated. 4. By notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the lands of claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of 100 feet road otherwise known as "Inner ring road". The lands of claimants come under the Koyambedu village in the Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk. The lands to an extent of 5.66 acres were taken over by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Initially Section 4(1) notification was issued on 6.10.1971. Subsequently, after following the due procedure by Award No.9 of 1981 dated 30.11.1981, the lands came to be vested with the State. The compensation awarded by the acquiring authority was at the rate of Rs.75.00 per cent. The claimants objected to the lower rate of compensation and claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.4000.00 per cent. 5. In view of the objections of claimants, the matter was referred to for determination of the market value by the jurisdictional Reference Court. The reference was entrusted for disposal by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Three references were registered as LAOP Nos.58 and 60 of 1986 and 101 of 1987. The Reference Court though recorded evidence and marked documents separately in each of the LAOP, since parties as well as the location of the lands acquired were from the same place, a common judgment came to be pronounced. 6. Before the Reference Court, in LAOP No.101 of 1987, one Shanmugavel was examined as C.W.1. On their side, 10 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.10. 6. Before the Reference Court, in LAOP No.101 of 1987, one Shanmugavel was examined as C.W.1. On their side, 10 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.10. On the side of the appellant, one M.R.Raghupathy and Srinivasan were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2. On their side, four documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4. In LAOP No.58 of 1986, on the side of the claimants, one R.Srinivasan was examined as C.W.1 and four documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. On the side of appellant, one M.H.Krishnamurthy Rao and D.A.Srinivasan were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and on their side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. In LAOP No.60 of 1986, on behalf of claimants, the sole respondent was examined as C.W.1 and one sale deed was marked as Ex.C.1. On the side of the appellant, M/s.M.R.Raghpathy and K.A.Sundrarajan were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2. On their side, four documents were filed and were marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4. 7. The Reference Court, on the basis of these evidence (both oral and documentary) came to the conclusion that the market value fixed by the acquiring authority was not justified and granting compensation at the rate of Rs.75.00 per cent was on a lower side. Therefore, it fixed compensation on an uniform rate of Rs.364.00 per cent. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the acquiring authority has filed three appeals. The claimants have filed two cross appeals. Since the issue arises in all these matters are similar, they were heard together and a common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, arguments addressed by both sides in LAOP No.101 of 1987 was taken into consideration. 8. The acquiring authority in these matters granted compensation in certain survey numbers at the rate of Re.1.00 per cent which is unbelievable. Exhibits filed on the side of the claimants in LAOP No.101 of 1987 and the value of the land found therein were as follows: Sl.No. Ex.No. Date S.No. Extent Rate per cent C-1 19.09.1969 17/2 2717 S.Ft. Rs.481/-2 C-2 22.09.1969 1/6 2/1 2260 S.ft. Rs.1,543/-3 C-3 11/2/1970 7/1/2010 1209 S.ft. Rs.721/-4 C-4 21.4.1970 15 2400 S.Ft. Rs.908/-5 C-5 16.11.1970 50/3 2400 S.ft. Rs.545/-6 C-6 22.09.1971 22/2 2400 S.ft. Rs.481/-2 C-2 22.09.1969 1/6 2/1 2260 S.ft. Rs.1,543/-3 C-3 11/2/1970 7/1/2010 1209 S.ft. Rs.721/-4 C-4 21.4.1970 15 2400 S.Ft. Rs.908/-5 C-5 16.11.1970 50/3 2400 S.ft. Rs.545/-6 C-6 22.09.1971 22/2 2400 S.ft. Rs.908/-7 C-7 29.5.1971 131/3 0.010-1/2 cent Rs.476/-8 C-8 9/8/1990 Common judgment in A.S.No.264/75 Batch High Court, Madras Rs.325/-9 C-9 1/7/1971 U.L.T. Assessment Order – Senjeri Village Rs.4,000/- per ground = Rs.727/- per cent 9. Likewise, exhibits filed by the acquiring authority and contents of the same were as follows: Sl.No. Ex.No. Date S.No. Extent Rate per cent 1 R-1 12/7/1971 125/3 1.11 Acre Rs.75/-2 R-3 Award No.9/81, 30.11.1981 3 R-4 Engineers Report – regarding Reclamation charges. 10. The court below found that before acquiring the lands, the date of sale in respect of three years preceding to Section 4(1) notification, i.e. from 10.10.1968 to 5.10.1971 in the vicinity of the lands were collected by the acquiring authority. There were as many as 268 sales had taken place during the said period. It must be noted that excepting in the statistical data relating to Serial Nos.10, 22, 23, 29, 51, 117, 186, no where the sale was effected below the rate of Rs.75.00 per cent. In fact, the price ranged anywhere between Rs.75.00/- and Rs.1940.00. The Reference Court found that Ex.C.2, dated 6.2.1970 cannot be taken into account as it is only a photostat copy was filed and it is a larger extent of land. It is also away from the lands which are acquired. Similarly, Ex.C.4 had come into existence after 4(1) notification and the same cannot be considered. Though Ex.C.1, dated 19.9.1969 comes in Survey No.17/2 to an extent of 6-1/2 cents was sold at Rs.3000/-, Ex.C.5 was taken into account for considering LAOP No.101 of 1987. With this in mind, the market rate was fixed at Rs.364/-. 11. Insofar as rejecting the evidence of the acquiring authority, the court below found that R.W.2, Assistant Divisional Engineer, though had claimed that the lands will have to be developed by bringing soil from outside to level the field and thus it may cost Rs.10.50 per square meter for levelling the field, his evidence was not accepted since there no such details were given in Ex.R.3. In fact, R.W.2 in his evidence admitted that the details relating to reclamation charges were added subsequently and he was not aware of addition of such entry in the file and that it was prepared for the purpose of this case. Therefore, for deducting Re.1.00 per cent towards development charges was not based upon any evidence. It is on the basis of this consideration, the court below ordered compensation together with solatium and additional compensation including the statutory interest. 12. In the appeal memo filed by the acquiring authority, it was contended that the court below ought to have accepted Exs.R.1 to R.4. Further, accepting the evidence of Ex.C.1 in LAOP No.101 of 1987 was also erroneous. Exs.C.1 to C.5 were small extent of lands and no compensation can be fixed on the said basis and parties to the same were not examined. 13. In the cross appeals filed by two of the claimants, it was argued that the court below had ignored the documents produced in Ex.C.9 which is the Urban Land Tax Assessment in respect of Senjeri village, wherein Tax was made at the rate of Rs.4000/- per ground which was worked out to Rs.727/-per cent. The authorities for the purpose of Tax cannot levy one rate and when it comes to acquisition, they have different yardstick. 14. In this context, a judgment of the division bench of this court in M.C.Chockalingam and others Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1976 MADRAS 256 was pressed into service. Reference was made to paragraph 2 of the said judgment which is as follows: "2. It is obvious that Government cannot value the same land at one figure for purposes of land acquisition and at another figure for purposes of levy of Urban Land tax. We are told that the appellants have not and do not propose to file an appeal against this order of assessment to urban land tax. We have to take this assessment for purposes of urban land tax to be fair and reasonable and that land is comparable to the land under acquisition, and they formed part and parcel of a larger extent." 15. But, in that case, it must be noted that the Urban Land Tax levied and compensation paid for acquisition in respect of the land which are not acquired, but in the same survey number. But, in that case, it must be noted that the Urban Land Tax levied and compensation paid for acquisition in respect of the land which are not acquired, but in the same survey number. But in the present case, Ex.C.9 does not relate to the land of the claimants. Therefore, this judgment will not have any assistance to the case of the claimants. 16. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. The Collector of Madras reported in 1969 (I) MLJ 45 (SC), wherein it was indicated that it is fair enough when the sale deed pertaining to different transaction was relied on by the Government and that representing the higher value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. 17. The said decision of the Supreme Court came to be followed by a division bench of this court vide its decision in The State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madras, Madras Vs. P.Seetharamammal reported in 1972 (I) MLJ 58 (Madras). 18. Therefore, based upon the same, the learned counsel for claimants submitted that the lands situated in Senjeri Bit II is surrounded by lands which are acquired and increase in the value of land, certain allowances should be given. Rs.1000/- should be the rate that should have been paid to the claimants. 19. Similar was the claim made in the appeal in A.S.No.91 of 2000. If the claim based upon Ex.C.9 is rejected for the reasons set out above, then the other reasoning found by the Reference Court cannot be found fault with. The Reference Court considered each of the exhibit filed by claimants and found that either they were subsequent to 4(1) notification or the lands were not situated very closer to the lands acquired. But at the same time, fixation of Re.1.00 per cent in some cases and Rs.75.00 per cent in some cases was totally arbitrary and contrary to even data lands furnished by the State. 20. In the evidence of R.W.1, who was the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore and who assisted the acquisition, he had claimed that the lands though was classified as Punja Manavari, but it is well connected with the bus services. There are many chamber brick works located in that area. But lands were kept as waste lands. 20. In the evidence of R.W.1, who was the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Mylapore and who assisted the acquisition, he had claimed that the lands though was classified as Punja Manavari, but it is well connected with the bus services. There are many chamber brick works located in that area. But lands were kept as waste lands. There were new housing colonies coming up nearby the lands, such as Avvai Nagar, Iyyappa Nagar, Chinmaiya Nagar. Even nearer to the land, many lay outs have come up by fixing various stone marks. R.W.2, D.A.Srinivasan, Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Highways Department stated that reclamation charges were written in the records after his signature. The court below considered all the evidence and records and came to the very fair conclusion that Ex.C.5 which is dated 16.11.1970, wherein 6-1/2 cents were sold at Rs.3000/- and that was taken as the basis. All the other lands are adjacent to that land and hence the same value was fixed in respect of the other lands. 21. The Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and others reported in 2010 (5) SCC 708 , observed in paragraph 83 as follows: "83. It is also an accepted judicial norm that the claimants can be given the benefit of awarding compensation on the basis of the genuine sale instance containing the highest rate, provided it has been proved in accordance with law and is a comparable instance. Such sale instance must satisfy all the requirements and prerequisites stated in the Act. It should be a bona fide transaction and should also be in a reasonable proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act...." The court below had adopted the said criteria in arriving at the compensation. 22. Further, in an another latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangunthala (dead) through LRs Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 661 , after quoting with approval the judgment in Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( 2008 (2) SCC 568 ), in paragraph 36 held as follows: "36. In Atma Singh V. State of Haryana it was observed that: (SCC p.572, para 4) "4....The expression market value has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. State of Haryana ( 2008 (2) SCC 568 ), in paragraph 36 held as follows: "36. In Atma Singh V. State of Haryana it was observed that: (SCC p.572, para 4) "4....The expression market value has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when let out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding principle would be the conduct of an hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and that of a purchaser who, in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not of an anxious purchaser dealing at arms length nor facade of sale nor a fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities." 23. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents referred to above, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in LAOP Nos.101 of 1987, 58 and 60 of 1986, dated 27.03.1996 does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the Appeal Suits will stand dismissed. However, under the circumstances of the case, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.