Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for respondents in A.S.Nos.152 to 157, 424 to 427 of 2007. 2.These Appeal Suits are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the common judgment passed in LAOP Nos.35 to 44, 47, 48, 51, 52 and 54 of 2001 and 54 of 2001, dated 19.8.2005 passed by the Sub Court, Thiruppathur. 3. The appellant is the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Andiyappanur Reservoir scheme, Thirupattur. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.23,000/- per acre. On respondents/claimants objected to the same and demanded Rs.15/- per sq.ft, the matter was referred to for determination of the market value by the jurisdictional Reference Court. The reference Court registered various references as LAOPs as indicated above. 4. The following table will show the names of parties, Reference number and the corresponding appeal numbers, which is as follows: Sl.No. Name of the party Reference No. A.S.No. 1 Sambamurthy LAOP No.35 of 2001 A.S.No.152 of 2007 2 Chennakrishnan LAOP No.36 of 2001 A.s.No.153 of 2007 3 Kannan LAOP No.37 of 2001 Chinnathambi Sundaramoorthy Chinathamman Vadivel AS No.154 of 2007 4 LAOP No.38 of 2001 AS No.155 of 2007 5 LAOP No.39 of 2001 AS No.156 of 2007 6 LAOP No.40 of 2001 AS No.157 of 2007 7 LAOP No.41 of 2001 AS No.424 of 2007 8 Sundaresan Veerapathiran Jayaraman Thulasiraman Munikrishnan LAOP No.42 of 2001 AS No.425 of 2007 9 LAOP No.43 of 2001 AS No.426 of 2007 10 LAOP No.44 of 2001 AS No.427 of 2007 11 LAOP No.47 of 2001 AS No.343 of 2010 12 LAOP No.48 of 2001 AS No.344 of 2010 Loganatha Rao Goverdhana Rao Mayavathi 13 LAOP No.51 of 2001 AS No.345 of 2010 14 LAOP No.52 of 2001 AS No.346 of 2010 15 LAOP No.54 of 2001 AS No.347 of 2010 5. Before the court below, on behalf of claimants, 18 witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.18. On their side, eight documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.8. On the side of the acquiring authority, one P.Baskaran was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. Before the court below, on behalf of claimants, 18 witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.18. On their side, eight documents were filed and marked as Exs.C.1 to C.8. On the side of the acquiring authority, one P.Baskaran was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. Ex.R.1 is the statistical data, Ex.R.3 is the topo map of the land acquired and Ex.R.2 is the sale deed, dated 6.3.1999 which is the data land and which formed basis for awarding the compensation. 6. The land of the respondents/claimants were acquired by resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1/1894 for the purpose of constructing a Dam across the Canals as well as Andiyappanur Odai situated in Andiyappanur village. Notifications under Section 4(1) were issued, approved and published in the Gazette, dated 1.3.2000. The emergency clause was invoked and notice under Section 17(2) was issued for acquiring the lands. Therefore, no enquiry under Section 5A was conducted in these cases. Subsequently, an Award No.4/2000-01, dated 6.1.2001 was passed. 7. After conducting a joint trial and recording evidence, the court below framed two issues which were as follows:- a) Whether the Award No.4/2000-2001, dated 6.1.2001 passed by the acquiring authority granting compensation is on the lower side and whether justified? b) If the answer is in the affirmative, then what is the enhanced compensation payable to each of the claimants? 8. Both issues were answered in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment of the court below. The court below accepted the evidence given by the claimants. The lands were situated in the village road leading to Highways towards Javvadu Hills. There are many facilities such as Government Hospital, Veterinary Hospital, Indian Overseas Bank, High School, Cooperative Bank, Telegraph and Post Officers were situated near the land to be acquired. Each of the claimant had stated that their lands had superior quality of soil, Tharam and land assessment and also utility. On that basis, the court below found that these statements were not impeached in the cross examination of witnesses. 9. The documents Exs.C.1 to C.8 were all sale deeds. Ex.C.1, dated 6.6.1997 is situated in Survey No.362/2 wherein the land to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10000/- and the sale took place 2-1/2 years before the 4(1) notification. 9. The documents Exs.C.1 to C.8 were all sale deeds. Ex.C.1, dated 6.6.1997 is situated in Survey No.362/2 wherein the land to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10000/- and the sale took place 2-1/2 years before the 4(1) notification. Similarly, Ex.C.2, dated 16.5.1997 is the sale deed relating to Survey No.362/1h wherein 1200 sq.ft. land was sold to Rs.10000/-and that the sale was three yeas before 4(1) notification. Likewise, in Ex.C.3 relating to Survey No.362/1h, the land to an extent of 2131.50 sq.ft. was sold to Rs.18000/- on 22.8.1997 and that document was also 2-1/2 years before 4(1) notification. Similarly, in Ex.C.4, the land situated in Survey No.450 to an extent of 1600 sq.ft was sold at Rs.25000/-on 15.2.1999 and that sale also took place one year before 4(1) notification. Ex.C.5 relates to Survey No.450, wherein 960 sq.ft. was sold to Rs.22,000/- on 27.1.1998 which was two yeas before 4(1) notification. Likewise Ex.C.7 was relating to Survey No.451/1 in which 792 sq.ft. was sold at Rs.18,200/- on 25.1.1999 which was one year before 4(1) notification. Ex.C.8 is relating to Survey No.473 to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. which was sold at the rate of Rs.21000/-on 24.3.1999. Therefore, the court below found that the exhibits marked as Exs.C.1 to C.8 came into existence minimum one year before Section 4(1) notification. It cannot be held that those documents were created for the purpose of the case. They were made as natural sale transactions. 10. While considering the evidence of the Special Tahsildar (Disaster Relief), the court below recorded that the scheme was conceived for the purpose of development of local people and to increase the fertility on soil and also the underground water recharge. The scheme will only help the agricultural in that area. It was not acquired for the purpose of building or house or facility for any individual. By the execution of the scheme, only the claimants and their future generation will be benefited. In his deposition, he also admitted that the village is situated in the Highways leading from Thirupatthur to Alangayam. It also got transport facility. Further, there were facilities like Government Hospital, Indian Overseas Bank, Government High school. It has further facilities like Cooperative Bank, Telephone Office, Head Post Office, Veterinary Dispensary. He also stated that the lands are connected by road. It also got transport facility. Further, there were facilities like Government Hospital, Indian Overseas Bank, Government High school. It has further facilities like Cooperative Bank, Telephone Office, Head Post Office, Veterinary Dispensary. He also stated that the lands are connected by road. He also admitted that Survey Nos.362, 351 and 450, by looking in the topo map, are closure to the land which are acquired. With reference to Ex.R.1 regarding Survey No.889/6, he stated that it has got no road facility and the persons will have to get into the stream and walk across to reach the land. The witness also admitted that no certificate from any Soil Conservation department was obtained to hold that the acquired lands and the data land were having same quality. In the statistical data, 200 sale deeds were considered and from which Exs.C.1,2 and 4 to 8 were taken up for consideration. Ex.C.3, dated 22.8.1997 and found in the statistical data at Serial No.58 was rejected as it was sold as an house site. 11. Pointing out the said statement, the court below held that what was important was to take note of the price relating to the land and not the purpose for which it was sold as per the recitals of those documents. Therefore, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the court below found that the evidence of claimants were more acceptable and exhibits produced on their side were not filed for the purpose of the case. By an average, through all these transactions, it found that the land was sold at Rs.20/-per sq.ft. Therefore, it held that the Award passed by the acquiring authority was not reasonable and the claimants are eligible for enhanced compensation. 12. After answering issue No.1 with reference to compensation, the court below found that the lands were acquired for public purpose and that the claimants and their descendants will be benefited. Therefore, their demand for compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.ft. cannot be accepted. But at the same time, it should be determined at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.ft. After fixing the market value at Rs.12/-, for the purpose of development charges, it deducted 1/3rd of the rate, i.e Rs.4/-and fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.8/-per sq.ft. and ordered the same accordingly. It is these judgments which are appealed against in all these appeals. 13. After fixing the market value at Rs.12/-, for the purpose of development charges, it deducted 1/3rd of the rate, i.e Rs.4/-and fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.8/-per sq.ft. and ordered the same accordingly. It is these judgments which are appealed against in all these appeals. 13. It was contended in the memorandum of appeals that the compensation awarded was exorbitant and the acquired lands are situated in interior place and in the foothill of Javvadu Hills. Exs.C.1 to C.8 were created for the purpose of claimants. The court below ought to have considered Exs.R.1 to R.3. The data land alone was comparable. Though it was contended that exemplar of sale of small plots cannot be compared when acquisition was made for larger tracts of land, it must be noted that the court below did not take note of the face value of exemplars produced as Exs.C.1 to C.8. On the other hand it analysed each sale transaction and found that they were made admittedly one year before the Section 4(1) notification. It also recorded a specific finding that they were not created for the purpose of record. It also found that the average value of the land was worked out to above Rs.20/- per sq.ft. Therefore, it reduced the rate to Rs.12/-. Further, considering that the lands will have to be developed for the purpose of reservoir, it gave 1/3rd discount from the market value. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment and decree passed by the court below. 14. The court below also found that the exemplar lands were closure to the lands under acquisition and the data land was far away even as per the admission of R.W.1. It also found that though exhibits produced by the claimants were also found in the statistical data furnished in Ex.R.1, without any genuine reason, they were rejected from consideration by the acquiring authority. 15. 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. 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. 16. 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. 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." 17. In the present case, such principles were adopted by the court below. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) have to be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, all the appeals will stand dismissed. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities." 17. In the present case, such principles were adopted by the court below. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) have to be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, all the appeals will stand dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. 18. Though a common judgment is rendered, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) is entitled to get separate counsel fee in each appeal.