Judgment :- Heard. 2. This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the judgment and decree in LAOP No.129 of 1987, dated 20.10.2000 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Puducherry. 3. The lands of the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of providing a Government Middle School and a Girls High school. The acquisition authority fixed the compensation for the acquired land and buildings for a sum of Rs.2,54,875.05 and worked out the compensation along with other statutory dues payable under the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The respondents/Claimants were not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the authority. Hence the issue was referred for determination by the jurisdictional Reference Court. On remand the case was registered as LAOP No.129 of 1987. Before the reference Court (i.e. the Court below) on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined as their witnesses. On their behalf, 24 documents were filed and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.24. 5. On the side of the acquiring authority, R.W.1 was examined and 10 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.10. The Reference Court on an analysis of the evidence (both oral and documentary) placed before it arrived at the market value of the lands acquired. It fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/-per Sq. feet together with proportionate statutory dues vide its judgment dated 20.10.2000. As against this judgment, the present appeal was preferred. 6. Printed copies of the pleadings and/selected documents were filed. The case records of the Court below was also circulated by the Registry for reference. 7. The contention raised by the appellant was that the enhanced compensation ordered by the reference Court was arbitrary and not based upon the guidelines prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. In general, the following grounds were urged: a) Reliance placed upon Exs.P.1 to P.3 were not proper. b) The exemplars of sale agreement of small plots cannot be taken into account. c) Further, the value of the building was on a higher side. 8. In the first round of litigation, the Reference Court by judgment and decree dated 28.7.1988 fixed compensation to respondents at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.ft and Rs.90000/- in respect of the constructed area. The said judgment was challenged before this court in A.S.No.180 of 1989. c) Further, the value of the building was on a higher side. 8. In the first round of litigation, the Reference Court by judgment and decree dated 28.7.1988 fixed compensation to respondents at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.ft and Rs.90000/- in respect of the constructed area. The said judgment was challenged before this court in A.S.No.180 of 1989. A division bench of this court, by a judgment, dated 20.6.2000, allowed the appeal and set aside the order on a short ground that Ex.P.12 was a photocopy of a registered sale deed which was marked and that in the light of Section 51-A, a photocopy cannot be relied on as evidence. Further, no one in connection with Exs.P.8,9 and 12 were examined before the Reference Court. In the light of the same, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh disposal. 9. Upon remand made to the Reference Court, documents were marked and witnesses were examined as set out above. It is seen from the records that in the land and building owned by the claimant, already a school was running on shift basis leased to the Directorate of Education, Puducherry. Initially, it was leased out from 15.4.1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.592/-. Subsequently, the land owner wanted a fair rent and a case was preferred before the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court fixed Rs.2193.58 per month as a fair rent. Aggrieved by the same, a miscellaneous appeal No.3/1983 was filed by the Department of Education before the appellate court. In that appeal, by a judgment, dated 12.9.1983, the appellate authority reduced the fair rent at Rs.1851/-. It was thereafter, the authority decided to acquire the land for the purpose of running Manimekalai Government Middle School and a Girls High School in the premises and invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1/1894. Even in the fair rent fixed, the appellate court found that the value of the building was at the rate of Rs.167.44 per sq.mtr. in respect of the constructed area. 10. The Reference court fixed the value of the land to an extent of 13615 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.ft. and the value of the building belonging to the firs respondent at Rs.90,000/-, in respect of fifth respondent as Rs.5000/-and sixth respondent as Rs.3000/- together with other statutory dues. in respect of the constructed area. 10. The Reference court fixed the value of the land to an extent of 13615 sq.ft. at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.ft. and the value of the building belonging to the firs respondent at Rs.90,000/-, in respect of fifth respondent as Rs.5000/-and sixth respondent as Rs.3000/- together with other statutory dues. In considering the market rate, it considered Ex.R.1 which is a statistical data in respect of Serial Nos.51, 61, 70, 85, 86 and 137 on an weighted average and such procedure is not contemplated in law. An average price of the land cannot be considered on the basis of various sale deeds. In this respect, the court below referred to several decisions of this court as well as of the Supreme Court. It considered that the date land was not a match to the acquired property and the highest sale in that area during the relevant period, i.e. on 12.4.1984 was item No.235, where the dry land was sold at the rate of Rs.24560.84/- per Are, which alone was taken into consideration. It also found that already a school was run by the Government on rental basis. It is also very near to the bus stop and residential and office locality. Pudupalayam village is a prime location of the city. 11. Ex.P.13 was the sale agreement prior to Section 4(1) notification. In Ex.P.13, the rate quoted was Rs.60/- per sq.ft. But in Ex.P.14, another sale agreement, the rate quoted was only Rs.45/- per sq.ft. which was subsequent to the notification. Therefore, the court below arrived at a conclusion that Rs.45/-can be safely fixed as market rate. Though it was contended that the sale agreement cannot be considered as the basis for arriving at the compensation and it had no evidentiary value. The court below also took into account the valuation certificates in Exs.P.1 to P.3 given by the retired Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. and marked through the first respondent as P.W.1. 12. In the cross examination, R.W.1, who was the Land Acquisition Officer cum Deputy Collector, Puducherry, (by name Sundaravadivelu), admitted that Ex.R.4 sale deed which was in favour of the 7th respondent and sale deed, dated 28.8.1978 in favour of the sixth respondent were never considered before passing the Award. 12. In the cross examination, R.W.1, who was the Land Acquisition Officer cum Deputy Collector, Puducherry, (by name Sundaravadivelu), admitted that Ex.R.4 sale deed which was in favour of the 7th respondent and sale deed, dated 28.8.1978 in favour of the sixth respondent were never considered before passing the Award. It was also brought to the notice that earlier this court remanded the matter only because Exs.P.8,9 and 12 were photocopies and no one relating to those transactions gave evidence before the court below. Both the defects pointed out by this court were rectified. Originals of those documents were marked and P.W.1 spoke about all these documents. 13. In respect of the valuation of the building, the Rent Control Appellate Court had granted an order in respect of fair rent proceedings and fixed the value of the property. The certified copy of the same was marked as Ex.P.24. Therefore, it is not a case where the court below passed the Award without any materials before it. On the other hand, the court below was conscious of the order of remand and also relevant materials placed before it and took note of all facts and circumstances of the case and then only ordered the compensation. 14. In this case, the question of deduction of any development charges will not arise, since already there was a constructed building, in which the very same Government was running a Middle school. There is no further development work required in respect of the land and it is in evidence. It is situated among several buildings and it is in the prime location. Therefore, there is no necessity for grant of any deduction towards development charges. A reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam Vs. Smt.A.Mangala Gowri reported in AIR 1992 SC 666 . In paragraph 4, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "4.....Where acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 1/3 would not be justified...." 15. It will not be out of place to refer to the fact that having lost the battle in the fair rent proceedings, the Government had resorted to the acquisition proceedings under the Central Act 1/1894. then deduction of 1/3 would not be justified...." 15. It will not be out of place to refer to the fact that having lost the battle in the fair rent proceedings, the Government had resorted to the acquisition proceedings under the Central Act 1/1894. There is no case made out to interfere with the well considered judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court and it is confirmed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit will stand dismissed. However, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are allowed to bear their own costs.