Judgment :- 1. The Appellant/Referring Officer has filed this Appeal as against the Award dated 30.09.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II), Ranipet, Vellore. 2. Since the subject matter of the present Appeal is covered by the Judgment of this Court in A.S.No.152 of 2006 dated 02.08.2010, this Court to avoid an avoidable delay dispenses with the issuance of notice to the Respondent/ Claimant. 3. The Tribunal viz., the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-II), Ranipet, Vellore while passing the Award dated 30.09.2003 in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002 has among other things observed that on a scrutiny of the entire documents, this Court considers that the document produced Ex.C.1 being far off land, it cannot be taken as the basis and enhanced the amount from Rs.214.28p to Rs.1,700/- per cent and answered the point affirmatively in favour of the Respondent/ Claimant. 4. The Government have acquired a total extent of 2.43.0 Hectares of land including the land of the Respondent/ Claimant in Survey No.30/3A (Ayan Punja) measuring 0.13.5 Hectares or 0.33 Acres in Thazhanoor Village, Walajahpet for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars in Arcot Town and has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,89,336/-. As far as the Respondent/Claimant is concerned the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,411/-. The Government has complied with the necessary procedural requirements to be adhered to in respect of the acquisition of land. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been published on 31.03.1993 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Section 5(A) Enquiry has been held on 18.11.1993 at Taluk Office, Arcot. Section 6 Declaration has been notified on 17.10.1994. The Respondent/Claimant has objected to the Award of compensation of Rs.10,411/- in respect of the land acquired. Hence, at her instance, the Appellant/ Referring Officer has referred the matter before the Tribunal viz., the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet, Vellore for enhancement of compensation. 5. Before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet, Vellore, on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant witness C.W.1 has been examined and Exs.C.1 and C.2 have been marked. On behalf of the Appellant/ Referring Officer witness R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 have been marked. 6. 5. Before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet, Vellore, on behalf of the Respondent/Claimant witness C.W.1 has been examined and Exs.C.1 and C.2 have been marked. On behalf of the Appellant/ Referring Officer witness R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 have been marked. 6. The trial Court on an appreciation of the available oral and documentary evidence on record has come to the resultant conclusion of determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,700/- per cent. The trial Court has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.214.28p fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.1,700/- per cent. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the Award passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002, the Appellant/ Referring Officer has projected this Appeal before this Court. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is Whether the trial Courts Award in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002 dated 30.09.2003 in fixing the market value of the acquired land per cent at Rs.1,700/-is sustainable in the eye of law? The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Point No.1: 9. According to the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the Appellant, the trial Court has exorbitantly increased the quantum of compensation from Rs.214.28p per cent to Rs.1,700/-per cent by violating the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and further, the trial Court has failed to take note of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered the relevant Sale Deeds which are prior to the date of Section 4(1) Notification of the Land Acquisition Act and determined the market value as Rs.214.28p per cent. 10. It is the further contention on the side of the Appellant/ Referring Officer that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Survey Number of the Ex.C.1 Sale Deed dated 14.09.1992 is different from the Survey Number of the land acquired and the same cannot be compared for fixing the value of the acquired land. 11. The Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) urges before this Court that the trial Court has erred in not deducting the necessary amount towards the development charges, when the land has been acquired for the purpose of housing scheme. 12. 11. The Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) urges before this Court that the trial Court has erred in not deducting the necessary amount towards the development charges, when the land has been acquired for the purpose of housing scheme. 12. In short, it is the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) that the enhancement of compensation made by the trial Court in its Award is highly an excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable one and therefore, prays for allowing the Appeal in the interest of justice. 13. It is to be noted that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exemplifies that (i)that the value of relevant potentialities of the Owner/ Claimant ought to be included but as possibilities and not as realised possibilities in the hands of the acquiring body. (ii)that all restrictions on user and enjoyment ought to be taken into account. (iii)that the measure of value is the market value of the property to the owner, or reinstatement value, whichever is more appropriate to give effect to the principle, on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 with an allowance for the compulsory nature of acquisition. (iv)the reasonable expenses incurred by the Owner/ Claimant being compelled in consequence of the acquisition of the land and to change his place of business or residence. (v)that the damage bona fide resulting from diminuting of the profit of the land between the time of the publication of the Declaration under Section 6 and at the time of Collectors taking possession of the land. 14. The trial Court in order to determine the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land has to necessarily take into account (i) what is to be valued? (ii) the measure of value? 15. It cannot be gainsaid that all the potentialities of the land viz., advantages which the land has, present or future in the hands of an owner will have to be taken into consideration as held in Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company V. Lacoste 1914 AC 569. 16. It is pertinent for this Court to point out that the determination of market value in respect of an acquired land is an indical process and a Court of Law may properly take into account all such relevant attendant factors which will influence a willing purchaser in making his maximum offer or a willing vendor quoting a lower price. 16. It is pertinent for this Court to point out that the determination of market value in respect of an acquired land is an indical process and a Court of Law may properly take into account all such relevant attendant factors which will influence a willing purchaser in making his maximum offer or a willing vendor quoting a lower price. 17. One cannot ignore an important fact that a land is to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put, but, also by reference to the use which it is reasonably capable of being put in future subject of course to the limitation provided as per Section 24 of the Act as per decision V.S.Subramania Chettiar V. State of Madras AIR 1953 Madras 943. 18. Where the land has been acquired compulsorily as per the Land Acquisition Act, the value to be paid for it, is the value of the owner as it existed on the date of notification as per Section 4 of the Act and not the value of the taker as per decision Manmatha Nath V. Secretary of State 83 IC 442. 19. The price/compensation to be determined is what a willing vendor or a purchaser or a buyer offer to buy or sell a property at a particular price. The locational advantages, the potential value its future prospects all these factors go a long way when a Court of Law fixes a compensation amount in respect of the acquired land. 20. Admittedly, the fixing of compensation by a Court of Law is not an exact science. The essential thing to be taken note if by a Court of Law is to consider all relevant factors as per decision Baboo Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1980 All. 324 (DB). 21. At this juncture, it is not out of place for this Court to point out that this Court in A.S.No.152 of 2006 on 02.08.2010 has among other things in para - 3 & 4 of the Judgment has held as follows: "3. However, in respect of the same Thazhanoor Village with reference to same purpose, this Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Reference Court, in the other Appeals filed by the State. However, in respect of the same Thazhanoor Village with reference to same purpose, this Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Reference Court, in the other Appeals filed by the State. It was found that the lands acquired are coming within the municipal area and therefore the question of classifying the land as agricultural land will not arise. However, the Court below had taken note of Ex.C.1 as the true indicator of market value. 4. In the light of the well considered order passed by the Court below, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. Hence, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs." 22. At this stage this Court recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the decision Thakur Kuldeep Singh (Dead) through LRs and others V. Union of India and others (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 794 whereby and whereunder,it is observed as follows: "While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector and the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability,nature of the use for which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally relevant to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Collector as well as the court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seeks an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable. In view of the purpose for which the "circle rates" have been notified by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, market value of a plot cannot be determined solely on the basis of the circle rates. However, it cannot be ignored in toto. If other materials are available, government rates can also be considered as corroborative evidence. The nature of the land plays an important role. Likewise, market conditions prevailing as on the date of notification are also relevant. Sale price in respect of a small piece of land cannot be the basis for determination of market value of a large stretch of land." 23. Continuing further, in Sangunthala (Dead) through Lrs V. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 661 at page 662, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: "While determining value of the property acquired the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in immediate or in near future needs to be considered. Evidence of C.Ws established that the lands were near the residential housing colonies and well connected to roads. High Court ignored materials on record and relied only on depositions of C.Ws 1 and 6 who admitted that initially all the acquired lands were agriculture lands. It thus, fell into an error in concluding that the acquired lands were agriculture lands and erroneously reversed the conclusions arrived at by the Reference Court." 24. In Special Land Acquisition Officer V. Karigowda and others (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 708 at page 710, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: "Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, it will also be just and fair to adopt some liberal approach with some element of guesswork to provide the claimants with just and fair market value of the land in question. It must be remembered that the entire land was acquired for the purpose of submerging the lands because of the water coming from Hemavathi Dam. It must be remembered that the entire land was acquired for the purpose of submerging the lands because of the water coming from Hemavathi Dam. In view of the cumulative discussion referred to above it will be just, fair, equitable and in consonance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act that the market value of the land on 4-4-2002 can safely be taken as Rs.2,30,000/- per acre in the case of garden land (instead of Rs.5,00,000/-per acre awarded by the High Court) and, applying the accepted principle of reducing the said compensation in the case of dry land (instead of Rs.2,53,4000 per acre awarded by the High Court) keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record." 25. Also, in the aforesaid decision in Paragraphs-75, 76 & 77 it is observed as follows: "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. 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. 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 adopt such a price and 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. The parties are expected to place documentary evidence on record that price adopt such a price and 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. 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 the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair market value of the acquired land." 26. On a perusal of the Award passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002 it is quite evident that the trial Court in its Award in para-6 has inter-alia held that from Ex.R.4 Rough Sketch Map, it is clear that the land in Survey No.119/2 is very far away from the acquired land and that the Claimant has produced the land sold at Survey No.119/2 for Rs.4,293/- per cent in the year 1992 and that document can never be a basis for deciding the compensation for the land acquired and however, in view of the fact that Arcot being an important well developed place, the enhancement claimed by the Claimant is quite in order and accordingly, enhanced the compensation from Rs.214.28p to Rs.1,700/- per cent. 27. Though Ex.C.1 Registration Copy of Sale dated 14.09.1992 has been relied on by the Respondent/Claimant side where a land in Survey No.119/2 has been sold for Rs.4,293/- per cent in the year 1992, the trial Court has not rested its conclusion based on the said document but it has taken into account of the fact that Arcot being an important well developed place and has observed that the enhancement claimed by the Claimant is quite in order. Accordingly, it has determined the compensation at Rs.1,700/- per cent in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, it has determined the compensation at Rs.1,700/- per cent in respect of the acquired land. Therefore, the fixation of the compensation as Rs.1,700/- per cent being the market value determined by the trial Court increasing from Rs.214.28p (fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer) cannot be said to be an excessive, exorbitant and an arbitrary one, in the considered opinion of this Court. 28. Per contra, this Court opines that the Award passed by the trial Court determining the compensation at Rs.1,700/-for the acquired land is a Fair, Sensible and an Equitable one. To put it differently, the Award of the trial Court cannot be said to be Windfall or Bonanza or Extravagant one. Though, generally 1/3rd deduction towards development charges is permissible, since the trial Court fixed the compensation at Rs.1,700/- per cent, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not deducting 1.3rd of compensation amount towards development charges and as such not deducting 1/3rd towards development charges by the trial Court is not a fatal one. 29. Looking at from any point of view, in the light of the detailed discussions in earlier paragraphs and on an overall assessments of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion, this Court resultantly concludes that the Award of the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality, warranting any interference in the hands of this Court sitting in Appeal and viewed in that perspective, the Appeal fails. 30. This Court fixes the fees of the Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) in terms of Rule 12 of Legal Practitioners Fees Rules, 1973 based on the present facts and circumstances of the case. 31. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Award passed by the trial Court in L.A.O.P.No.156 of 2002 dated 30.09.2003 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.