Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appeallant, Mr.T.K.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways. 2. These two appeals were filed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, Tindivanam challenging the award passed by the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam in L.A.O.P.No.27 and 28 of 2004. The Court below by a common judgment dated 22.02.2006 upheld the claim made by the claimants and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.ft. together with other statutory dues. 3. The lands of the respondents/claimants are situated in Kidangal Village coming within and very close to the Tindivanam Municipality. The lands of the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of conversion of Meter Gauge Railway line into Broad Gauge Railway line going from Chennai to Trichy. 4. Section 4(1) notification was issued by G.O.Ms.No.51, Transport Department dated 19.04.2000. After following the due procedure, the lands were taken over. The acquiring authority fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.48,485/-per acre i.e., Rs.484 per cent. The land owners were not satisfied with the low rate of compensation awarded by the acquiring authority. Therefore, they raised objections. The matter was referred under Section 18 for determination of the market value by the jurisdictional reference court, which is the court below. The court below registered both the reference as L.A.O.P.Nos.27 and 28 of 2004. 5. Before the court below, common evidence was let in in both the LAOPs. On the side of the claimants, three (3) witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.3 and on their side, three documents were filed viz., Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3. On the side of the acquiring authority, the Assistant to the Sub-Collector, one Devi was examined as R.W.1 and on their side, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 were filed. While acquiring authority placed reliance upon the data land, which is the sale deed dated 13.10.1999, marked as Ex.R.2, the respondents/claimants placed reliance on three documents for their claim. Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3 are two sale deeds and Ex.C.1 is the order dated 28.04.1993. The said order is a lay out sanction made by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Department. 6. The Court below on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the compensation fixed by the Acquiring Authority was not reflecting the market value. The said order is a lay out sanction made by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Department. 6. The Court below on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the compensation fixed by the Acquiring Authority was not reflecting the market value. It found that while collecting the statistical data, 39 transactions were taken into account and even though, the location, soil and the tharam of the lands were different, all those transactions were rejected and only Sl.No.30 was taken into account. The said documents relates to S.No.305/7 and 305/6 and in that transaction, the sale deed showed the value of the land as Rs.48,485/-. 7. However, in cross-examination of R.W.1, she had admitted that the lands are situated in between the National Highways and the Railway Track and closer to the land of the Sub-Collectors Office and at the time of acquisition, there was colony by name Jai Nagar and plots have been sold in that colony and the data land is only an agricultural land and not a land, which was used as a house site. 8. With reference to Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3, the Court below found that they were sale deeds relating to 1996 and 2001. In Ex.C.2, which is only a gift deed, the valuation comes to Rs.23/- per sq.ft and Ex.C.3, the value comes to Rs.33/-. Both the documents were admittedly before the issuance of Section 4(1) notification and even if appropriate deductions are made, then the per sq.ft rate may work out to Rs.20/-. It is on that basis, the Reference Court determined the market value as Rs.20/-per sq.ft. together with other statutory dues available to the land owner. 9. It is contended by the appellants that Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3 are documents pertaining to interested parties and are closer relation to the claimants and Ex.C.2 is the gift deed for which no reliance can be placed upon. 10. In the present case, the reliance was placed upon Ex.C.2. On the other hand, the Reference Court had taken note of developed nature of the land, wherein, the lay out permission was given by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning as per Ex.C.1. Ex.C.3 is the sale deed and therefore, that cannot be rejected. The Supreme Court in fact in Special Deputy Collector and another etc Vs. On the other hand, the Reference Court had taken note of developed nature of the land, wherein, the lay out permission was given by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning as per Ex.C.1. Ex.C.3 is the sale deed and therefore, that cannot be rejected. The Supreme Court in fact in Special Deputy Collector and another etc Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others etc., reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 has held that the land sold by the claimant can even be a true indicator of market value and best evidence. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is usefully extracted as follows:- "8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors." 11. Therefore, the allegation that the document emanated from close relation of the claimants cannot be accepted. The court below has also made sufficient discount and arrived at market value at Rs.20/. This court in several other instances relating to the same acquisition in the near by land has accepted the compensation fixed by the Reference Court. Therefore, no exception can be made to the well considered judgment passed by the Reference Court in LAOP.Nos.27 and 28 of 2004. 12. Under these circumstances, this court is not proceeded to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Hence, both the Appeal Suits are dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. 13. It is made clear that though a common judgment has been pronounced, Mr.V.Ravi, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) and the Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways are entitled for separate fees.