Judgment :- 1. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS), Ms.Shanmuga Priya for Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.No.1209 of 2001, Mr.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for first respondent in A.S.No.1210 of 2001 and Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the Managing Director, Annai Sathya Transport Corporation, Dharmapuri. Pleadings set was printed and original records were summons and they were perused. 2. The appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri. The two appeal suits are filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri in LAOP Nos.58 and 59 of 1988,dated 15.12.1999. The land of the private respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of running a Motel to be run by the fifth respondent Annai Sathya Transport Corporation (presently amalgamated with Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.). 3. In A.S.No.1209 of 2001, the claimants lands were taken over to an extent of 0.52.0 hectares for a compensation of Rs.10,833.16 fixed by the acquiring authority. He had fixed the value of house found in the land at Rs.30,700/- and the tree value as Rs.401/-. As against these valuations, on an objection being raised by the claimants, the matter was referred to the jurisdictional reference court, which is the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The Sub Court registered the reference as LAOP No.58 of 1988. After trial, it increased the compensation by fixing Rs.2,36,705/-per hectare. The value for the house was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. For the value of the tree, there was no change and the additional compensation was directed to be paid. It is as against the said judgment and decree, A.S.No.1209 of 2001 was filed. 4. A.S.No.1210 of 2001 is directed against the LAOP No.59 of 1988. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation for the land acquired to an extent of 1.05.5 hectares at Rs.20833/- per hectare. The value of the Well was fixed at Rs.5200/- and the value of house and basement was fixed at Rs.2,035/-. On an objection being raised by the claimant, the land owner, the matter was referred to the reference court, which is the Sub Court, Krishnagiri. The Sub Court registered the reference as LAOP No.59 of 1988. The Sub Court fixed the land value at Rs.2,36,705/-per hectare. The value of the Well and basement was not changed. It is as against these judgment and decree, these appeal suits were filed. 5. The Sub Court registered the reference as LAOP No.59 of 1988. The Sub Court fixed the land value at Rs.2,36,705/-per hectare. The value of the Well and basement was not changed. It is as against these judgment and decree, these appeal suits were filed. 5. The appellant contended that increasing the compensation by the Reference Court was on higher side and would amount to 10 times increase. Reliance placed upon Ex.P.3, sale deed was created for the purpose of the case. Even P.W.2 had admitted that the property was purchased for an higher rate inspite of knowledge regarding acquisition proceedings. It was further contended that the reference court cannot award more than what was claimed by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Before the reference court, both LAOPs were tried together and common evidence was let in. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.3 and four documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.4. On the side of the appellant, two witnesses were examined and five documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5. 7. The trial court framed the first issue, i.e. Whether the compensation fixed by the acquiring authority was proper and if not to what relief, the claimants are entitled to. In respect of that issue, the findings recorded by the Sub Court was that adjacent to the land acquired, there are schools, hospitals and bus stand situated and it is adjacent to Chennai Bangalore National Highways and also situated nearer to Krishnagiri Municipality. Even earlier, lands were purchased and houses were constructed. Therefore, they are entitled to get additional compensation. It was also held that there is a theatre located. Further, in the Highways, there is a petrol bunk. There are many buildings and hotels adjacent to the place of acquisition. The Reference court rejected the exemplar furnished by the appellant and found that as per Ex.C.2, the land to an extent of 1800 sq.ft was sold to Rs.9900/-. As per Ex.C.3, the land to an extent of 0.02 cent was sold to Rs.18,500/-. Therefore, fixation of compensation by the acquiring authority was grossly under estimated. Even the adjacent lands were converted to house sites and lay outs were found. As per Ex.C.3, the land to an extent of 0.02 cent was sold to Rs.18,500/-. Therefore, fixation of compensation by the acquiring authority was grossly under estimated. Even the adjacent lands were converted to house sites and lay outs were found. It also held that in case where there was no comparable sale of land, smaller exemplar can be taken note of after giving sufficient discount. So far the valuation of basement and well is concerned, there is no appeal to that issue. The issue is only in respect of the valuation of land. The reference court also held that Ex.C.2 was relating to very same survey number in which acquisition was made. Therefore, it had enhanced the compensation. 8. It must be stated that the Supreme Court in Rishi Pal Singh v. Meerut Development Authority reported in (2006) 3 SCC 205 , held that even if there are vast tract of land are acquired, even exemplar of small plots can be considered for determining the market value and if such exemplar of small plots are considered, then adequate discount can also be given. The following passage found in paragraph 5 may be usefully extracted herebelow: "5. On merits the learned counsel submits with reference to the impugned judgment of the High Court that only two reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the order of the Reference Court and remanding the case back to it. First reason is that exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court are of small plots of land whereas the acquisition is of a large tract of land i.e. about 180 acres. The second reason given in the impugned judgment for remand is that exemplars filed by the acquiring authority i.e. the appellants (sic respondent) before us, were not considered by the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the judgment of the Reference Court to show that both the reasons given by the High Court in its impugned order are factually incorrect. With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars of small plots into consideration. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to this part of the judgment of the Reference Court which has resulted in the High Court completely overlooking the relevant discussion in the judgment of the Reference Court." 9. Very recently, the Supreme Court 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. 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 Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 in paragraph 91 held as follows: "91. It is a settled rudiment of law that the court, in given facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the potentiality and utility of the land acquired, can award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the claimants and they are not deprived of their property without grant of fair compensation. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao20. While adopting the average sale method as the formula for awarding compensation to the claimants, we are also of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the land is being compulsorily acquired, the claimants should be awarded a higher compensation. The compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000 per acre for the wetland and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400 per acre for the dry land would be just and fair compensation and would do complete justice between the parties. This element of increase had not been added by the SLAO which ought to have been done." 11. The compensation at the rate of Rs.2,30,000 per acre for the wetland and at the rate of Rs.1,53,400 per acre for the dry land would be just and fair compensation and would do complete justice between the parties. This element of increase had not been added by the SLAO which ought to have been done." 11. Therefore, in the light of the above, it cannot be said that the reference court committed any mistake in awarding higher compensation. On the contrary, the court below had taken note of all relevant facts and went by available evidence (both documentary and oral) and came to a correct conclusion. 12. The contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) was that the court below cannot give more compensation than what was claimed by the claimant before the authority and placed reliance upon Section 25 introduced by Amendment Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 16/1997), wherein it was declared that compensation awarded by the court cannot be more than what was claimed by the person interested. That amendment was introduced long after the Section 4(1) notification and also after the reference was made under Section 18(1). 13. 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. 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. We have 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. 14. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the court below. Hence, both the Appeal Suits will stand dismissed. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.