Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.A.S.Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 2. These appeals are filed by the Managing Director of National Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and the Special Tahsildar, National Highways Department, Chennai challenging the common judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 passed in various LAOPs starting from 10 of 1993 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Chengelpet District at Poonamallee. 3. The lands of the respondents/claimants were acquired for the purpose of laying by-pass road from linking NH-45 with NH-7. The acquiring authority granted compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per Cent. The land owners objected to the low rate of compensation and the matter was referred for determination of market value by the Reference Court under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court registered the various references as LAOP numbers. 4. The following table will indicate the case number of the LAOPs and the corresponding appeals. Sl.No. APPEAL No. L.A.O.P. No. 1 650/2007 10/1993 2 651/2007 11/1993 3 652/2007 12/1993 4 653/2007 13/1993 5 654/2007 14/1993 6 655/2007 15/1993 7 656/2007 16/1993 8 657/2007 17/1993 9 658/2007 18/1993 10 659/2007 19/1993 11 660/2007 20/1993 12 661/2007 49/1993 13 662/2007 50/1993 14 663/2007 51/1993 15 664/2007 52/1993 16 665/2007 53/1994 17 666/2007 228/1993 18 667/2007 229/1993 19 668/2007 230/1993 20 669/2007 231/1993 21 670/2007 232/1993 22 671/2007 233/1993 23 672/2007 234/1993 24 673/2007 235/1993 25 674/2007 237/1993 26 675/2007 238/1993 27 676/2007 239/1993 28 677/2007 240/1993 29 678/2007 242/1993 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, 7 documents have been filed and marked as Ex.C.1 to C.7 and one Kesavan of Kallikuppam Village gave a common evidence as C.W.1. On the side of the acquiring authority, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri by name Kalyana Sundaram was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were filed. The acquiring authority res contended with the statistical data, which was used for arriving at the compensation. 6. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the acquiring authority has fixed the low rate of compensation and the claimants are entitled for enhancement. The acquiring authority res contended with the statistical data, which was used for arriving at the compensation. 6. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the acquiring authority has fixed the low rate of compensation and the claimants are entitled for enhancement. While deciding the question of fixation of market rate, the Reference Court held that there was no agricultural land in the area and the lands have been converted into lay outs and thousands of buildings have been constructed in that area. The lands which are acquired are coming within the Municipal limits and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board constructed houses in the other side of the Railway line and the houses are situated in the neighbouring land. House taxes were also directed by the Ambattur Municipality. There are about 10 Wedding halls, 6 major factories and 1000 small scale industries. It is also stated that transport facilities are available and there are many small and big hospitals apart from the ESI Hospital. Ambattur Municipality is "A" Grade Municipality and is collecting the highest revenue in Tamil Nadu. The court below also noted that the acquiring authority while detecting the statistical data had omitted the several crucial lands, which are more comparable to the lands acquired and which are fetching sales consideration of more than Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per Cent. It also found that the number of comparable lands with similar extent of acquisition ie., as many as 12 sale deeds are fetching the sale consideration of more than Rs.9,000/-. Apart from the fact, it also took note of evidence produced on the side of the claimants and which are marked through C.W.1. While considering the evidence of C.W.1, the court below found that under Ex.C.1 Sale Deed, the land was sold at Rs.19,620/-per Cent on 21.12.1990. Section 4(1) Notification was dated 3.8.1987 and therefore Ex.C.1, which came into existence after three years cannot be considered. However, under Ex.C.2, Sale Deed dated 3.1.1987, 4 Cent land was sold for Rs.30,000/-, which was 7 months prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Ex.C.2 and Ex.C7 are dated 3.1.1987 and it is to the extent of 1800 Sq.ft. Ex.C.3 was subsequent to the 4(1) Notification and therefore that was not considered. However, under Ex.C.2, Sale Deed dated 3.1.1987, 4 Cent land was sold for Rs.30,000/-, which was 7 months prior to Section 4(1) Notification. Ex.C.2 and Ex.C7 are dated 3.1.1987 and it is to the extent of 1800 Sq.ft. Ex.C.3 was subsequent to the 4(1) Notification and therefore that was not considered. Ex.C.4 is an advertisement issued by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, approving the lay out for building houses in Survey Nos762, 764, 765 and 769. Ex.C.5 shows that the lands in Survey No.758 and Sub Divisions 767 and 767 were also divided into lay outs. Ex.C.6 was a house tax receipt paid by one Krishnammal. Therefore, considering the advertisement found in Ex.C.4, the lands are capable of house sites and they are coming within the metropolitan area of Chennai. In this context, the court below held that considering the nature of the land and the utility value of the land and relying upon the market rate fixed in Exs.C.1 to C.3, it finally arrived at the market rate of Rs.7,000/-per Cent. After fixing the market rate, the court below also ordered solatium and the additional compensation as required under law. 7. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended that the market rate was not fixed after following the guidelines prescribed under sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and no reliance can be placed upon Ex.C.1, which came into existence after the notification under section 4(1). Similar was the case of Ex.C.3, 8. However in the present case as can be seen from the discussion made by the Reference Court , the Reference Court was fully aware of the post notification sale deeds and gave proper discount for their valuation and it also went by the statistical data, which was available with the acquiring authority, who for the reasons best known discarded the relevant data, which are in favour of the claimants. The attempt made by the acquiring authority to value the lands as if the agricultural lands cannot be accepted especially in the context of overwhelming evidence that they were the developed lands and they can be used as house sites and some of the land owners are paying house tax to the Municipality. It also situated within the municipal area well connected with the transport both by rail and road and located in an industrial area. It also situated within the municipal area well connected with the transport both by rail and road and located in an industrial area. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below had committed grave error in rejecting the case of the acquiring authority. On the other hand, the acquiring authority for reasons best known did not produce any data to justify the market rate fixed by them. 9. The Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 , had held that mere production of statistical data cannot be an evidence for the Reference Court to consider. The Supreme Court held as follows: 4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. (3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. 10. Even otherwise very recently the Supreme Court in SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 had held that when there is an attempt for acquisition for common purpose, not only the utility value but the uniformity of purpose can be taken note of. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the following passage found in paragraphs 75 to 77: 75. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e. Instance of the same villages are available, then it is most desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. But where such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential of the land in two different villages are the same then they could be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as would be just and fair. 76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same public purpose or different schemes but on the commonality of purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price of the land of adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt such a price a the same is not impermissible. Where there is commonality of purpose and common development, compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Bal Ram. 77. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India where sale instances of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible but even more practical for the courts to take into consideration the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land." (Emphasis added). 11. Under the circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. Hence, all the Appeal Suits stand dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. It is made clear that though a common judgment is pronounced in respect of all the acquisitions, the learned Special Government Pleader (AS) is entitled to get separate set of fees in respect of each appeal.