Judgment : Per M. VENUGOPAL, J. These appeals arise out of an award passed in L.A.O.P. Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003 by the Learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Poonamallee dated 210. 2004. 2. The respective respondent/claimant in the appeals on being dissatisfied with the value of compensation determined by the land Acquisition Officer, as referred to supra had raised their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer and Land Acquisition Officer was perforced to refer the matter as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Tribunal. 3. Before the Tribunal, witness CW-1 Sambandan, claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 389 of 2003 was examined, as a witness on behalf of the respective claimants and Exhibits CI to C5 were marked. On the side of appellant/referring Officer R.W.1 Paulsamy was examined. Exhibit R-1 was marked. 4. Aggrieved against the award of enhancement of compensation from Rs. 1,270/- percent to Rs. 13,725/- per cent in respect of acquired lands in Nazrathpettai Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District for implementation of Outer Ring Road Project, the Special Tahsildar, land Acquisition, Unit3, Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-8 has projected these appeals. 5. Since, all the appeals arise out of Common Award, they were taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 6. The short summation of the facts of the matters are set out below: An extent of land measuring 10. 47.5 hectares in the village of 36, Nazareth Pettai in the Taluk of Poonamallee in the registration Sub-District of Poonamallee in the District of Tiruvallur are registered in the names of registered holder or occupied by the persons mentioned therein was declared and directed by the Government of Tamilnadu in Housing and Urban Development Department on 13. 2001 in the Tamilnadu Government Gazattee Extra Ordinary issue No. 201, Part II Section 1-2 to be needed for the formation of Outer Ring Road by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Section 4(1) Notification under the Act was published on 2. 2000. Section 5A enquiry was conducted on 24. 2000 and 24. 2000 respectively. 94 sale deeds pertaining to the period from 20.3.1997 to 20.3.2000 were considered. 7. In L.A.O.P. No. 387 of 2003 (A.S. No. 698 of 2005), the respondent/claimant land0.99 hectares in S. No. 23/2D2 of Nazareth nagar near Poonamallee Town was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer/Reference Court. 2000. Section 5A enquiry was conducted on 24. 2000 and 24. 2000 respectively. 94 sale deeds pertaining to the period from 20.3.1997 to 20.3.2000 were considered. 7. In L.A.O.P. No. 387 of 2003 (A.S. No. 698 of 2005), the respondent/claimant land0.99 hectares in S. No. 23/2D2 of Nazareth nagar near Poonamallee Town was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer/Reference Court. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the land value at Rs. 3136.90 per Are for 0.99.0 hectares and fixed the value at Rs. 3,10,5510. For the value of structure, he awarded a sum of Rs. 1,550/-. For the value of the tree, he granted a sum of Rs. 180. Thus, he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,12,283.10/-. He also awarded 30% solatium amount of Rs. 93,6893. For the period from 20.3.2000 to 30.12.2000 for 287 days, he fixed 12% additional market, value at Rs. 29,385.33/-. Likewise, for the period from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003 for 801 days, he fixed a sum of Rs. 82,237.40/- being the 12% additional market value. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,17,597.73/- or Rs. 5,17,590/- as total compensation payable. 8. In L.A.O.P. No. 388 of 2003 (A.S. No. 699 of 200), the land of 0.37.0 in S. No. 27/1B and 0.10 land in S. No. 27/4A totaling in all 0.47.1 of Nazareth Pettai in Poonamallee Taluk or Trivallur District belonging to the respondent/claimant was acquired by the Government for the formation of Outer Ring Road by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the respondent/claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 3,136.90/- per Are as compensation amounting to Rs. 1,47,434.30/-by the Land Acquisition Officer and a sum of Rs. 44,230.29/-was awarded as 30%solatium amount and for the period from 20.3.2000 to 30.12.2000 (for 287 days) 12% additional market value was granted as Rs. 13,873.33/- and for the period from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003 (for 801 days) a sum of Rs. 38,825.71/- was awarded and in all the respondent/claimant was awarded with a total compensation of Rs. 2,44,363.63/-. 9. 44,230.29/-was awarded as 30%solatium amount and for the period from 20.3.2000 to 30.12.2000 (for 287 days) 12% additional market value was granted as Rs. 13,873.33/- and for the period from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003 (for 801 days) a sum of Rs. 38,825.71/- was awarded and in all the respondent/claimant was awarded with a total compensation of Rs. 2,44,363.63/-. 9. In respect of L.A.O.P. No. 389 of 2003 (A.S. No. 700 of 2005), the respondent/claimant land 0.40.0 in S. No. 23/1A2, 0.61 land in S. No. 23/2A2 in Nazareth Pettai village of Poonamallee Taluk in Tiruvallur District was acquired by the Government for formation of Outer Ring Road by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and in all 1.01 hectares of land was acquired and a compensation of Rs. 3,136.90 per Are for 1.01.0 hectare was awarded as compensation amounting to Rs. 3,16,826.90/-. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a 30% solatium amounting to Rs. 95,048.07/- to the claimant as 12% additional market value. He awarded a sum of Rs. 29,812.89/-being 12% additional market value (for 287 days from 20.3.2000 to 312. 2000) for 775 days, from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003, he granted a sum of Rs. 83,433.98/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 5,25,122/-was awarded as total compensation payable to the respondent/claimant. 10. As regards the L.A.O.P. No. 390 of 2003 (A.S. No. 701 of 2005), the respondent/claimant land measuring 0.01.5 in S. No. 23/2B1 in Nazareth Pettai Village of Poonamallee Taluk in Tiruvallur District was acquired by the Government for the formation of Outer Ring Road by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and a compensation of Rs. 4,705.35/- was awarded to the claimant being the land value. The Land Acquisition Officer also granted 12% additional market value (for the period from 20.3.2000 to 312. 2000 i.e., 287 days) for the period from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003 (for 801 days) he awarded a sum of Rs. 1,239.12/-. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant was Rs. 7,799/-. 11. Insofar as the L.A.O.P. No. 391 of 2003 (A.S. No. 702 of 2005) is concerned, the land of respondent/claimant in S. No. 23/2C1 measuring 0.52.0 in Nazareth Pettai Village of Poonamallee Taluk in Tiruvallur District was acquired by the Government for the formation of Outer Ring Road by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The respondent/claimant was awarded a land value compensation of Rs. 1,63,118/-(land value at Rs. The respondent/claimant was awarded a land value compensation of Rs. 1,63,118/-(land value at Rs. 3,136.90 per Are) for 0.52.0 hectares. A 30% solatium of Rs. 48,935.65/- was awarded to the respondent/claimant. A 12% additional market value at Rs. 15,349.21/- was awarded pertaining to the period from 20.3.2000 to 312. 2000 (287 days). For the period from 1. 2001 to 13. 2003 for 801 days a sum of Rs. 42,956.11 was awarded. In all, the respondent/claimant was awarded with a total compensation of Rs. 2,70,360/-. 12. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award proceedings No. 2/03 dated 13. 2003 has stated that he took into account the sale deed dated 111. 1999 (Document No. 1494) measuring an extent of 0.68 acre in S. No. 139/1 Varadharajapuram Village which was sold for Rs. 86,360/- at Rs. 1,270/-per cent. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer in his award has made mention of that though the classification, assessment and soil tharam of the land in S. No. 139/1 and that of the S. No. to be acquired are different, the above sale is considered suitable to decide the market value of the land proposed to be acquired, since the land in S. No. 139/1 situated in the alignment of Outer Ring Road in view of the fact that the sale has taken place within one year prior to the date of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. Added further, since the dry lands have been sold as house sites, thee sales have not been taken as the basis for fixing the value of Dry land proposed to be acquired. Hence, the land value has been arrived at Rs. 1,270/-per cent or Rs. 3,136.90 per Are on the basis of registered sale deed dated 111. 1999. Thus, the true area of the land acquired was 47. 5 hectares. The compensation granted for the land acquired was Rs. 65,69,680/-. 13. As per Exhibit C-1, sale deed dated 6. 1998 (Document No. 590 of 1998) an extent of 21/2 cents in S. No. 203/1 was sold for Rs. 50,300/-. Based on the same, one cent was sold for Rs. 50,300/-. Based on the same, one cent was sold for Rs. 20,000/-. In terms of Exhibit C-2, sale deed dated 28. 1998 (Document No. 883 of 1998) an extent of 78 cents in S. No. 195/1 was sold for Rs. 19,200/- per cent. 50,300/-. Based on the same, one cent was sold for Rs. 50,300/-. Based on the same, one cent was sold for Rs. 20,000/-. In terms of Exhibit C-2, sale deed dated 28. 1998 (Document No. 883 of 1998) an extent of 78 cents in S. No. 195/1 was sold for Rs. 19,200/- per cent. As per Exhibit C-3, sale deed dated 9. 1998 (Document No. 923 of 1998) an extent of 0.10 cent was sold for Rs. 2,18,000/-in S. No. 200/3. As per this document, one cent was sold at Rs. 21,800/-. As per Exhibit C4, sale deed dated 111. 1998 (Document No. 1250 of 1998) an extent of 0.14 per cent in S. No. 198 was sold for Rs. 3,00,000/-, the value of one cent being Rs. 21,425/-. As per Exhibit C-5, sale deed dated 22. 1999 (Document No. 247 of 1999) an extent of 20 cents in S. No.202/1 and an extent of 0.20 cents in S. No. 202/2 was sold for Rs. 92,214/-. The value of one cent being Rs. 20,500/-. 14. The Additional District Judge (FTC No. 3), Poonamallee had taken into account the 5 ale deeds referred to supra and total amount of all these sale deeds worked out to Rs. 1,02,925/-and the average value per cent was Rs. 20,585/-. From the said sum of Rs. 20,585/-, 1/3rd was deduced towards Development charges and on being rounded off a sum of Rs. 13,725/- per cent was determined by the Tribunal/Court as compensation in respect of the acquired lands. 15. Admittedly, the Tribunal/Reference Court determined the compensation for the acquired lands per cent at Rs. 13,725/- (after deducting 1/3rd sum of Rs. 6,861/-) and it had awarded 12% interest for the said amount from the date of Section 4(1) Notification till date of award of the Land Acquisition Officer or the date on which decision was taken whichever was earlier and also awarded a solatium (sic) of 30% interest on the enhanced compensation, besides granting an interest at 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of acquisition and further, awarded interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and thereafter till the date of realization. 16. 16. The extent of acquired land details and the sum awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the enhanced compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court are hereinunder: Market value Enhancement A.S. No .L.A.O.P. No. Award No. & Date .S. No. and Extent fixed by LAO by Court (per cent) 698 of 2005 387 of 2003 2 of 2003 dt. 13. 2003 23/2D2 0.99.0 Hec. 1,270/- 13,725/- 699 of 2005 388 of 2003 2 of 2003 dt. 13. 2003 27/1B, 4A 0.42.0 Hec. 1,270/- 13,725/- 700 of 2005 389 of 2003 2 of 2003 dt. 13. 2003 23/1A, 2A2 1.01.0 Hec. 1,270/- 13,725/- 701 of 2005 390 of 2003 2 of 2003 dt. 13. 2003 23/2B1 0.01.5 Hec. 1,270/- 13,725/- 702 of 2005 391 of 2003 2 of 2003 dt. 13. 2003 23/2C1 0.52.0 Hec. 1,270/- 13,725/- 17. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on either side and noticed their contentions. 18. The learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant/Referring Officer contends that the Tribunal had committed an error in enhancing the compensation amount in an excessive fashion from Rs. 1,270/- to Rs. 13,725/-per cent, thereby violated the procedures as per Land Acquisition Officer rightly took into account a relevant sale deed which was earlier to the date of Section 4(1) Notification of the Act and determined the market value at Rs. 1,2707-percent. 19. It is the further contention of the appellant/Referring Officer that Exhibit C-1 to C-5 sale deeds were concerned with smaller extent of land and indeed these lands were situated in Varadharajapuram Village, which could not be taken into consideration while arriving at the value of the acquired land, because of the simple fact that the acquired land was situated at Nazareth Pettai. 20. Advancing the argument, learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant strenuously contends that the acquired lands were in S. No. 15 to 27 but the land under Exhibit C-1 to C-5 were beyond S. No. 200 and that the Tribunal was not correct in deducting 30% towards development charges, when the lands acquired were meant for the housing scheme. 21. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contends that the proper deduction to be made in regard to the development charges relating to the present case was 65% but this aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the Tribunal in proper perspective. 22. 21. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contends that the proper deduction to be made in regard to the development charges relating to the present case was 65% but this aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the Tribunal in proper perspective. 22. In short, it is the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant that the award of the Tribunal in determining the compensation at the enhanced level not a lawful one but certainly art excessive one and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal to promote substantial cause of justice. 23. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the acquired lands are situated at Nazareth Pettai, near Poonamallee town, situated exactly next to Poonamallee to Sriperumbadur National Highways of its southern side and the acquired lands are bounded on North by Madras-Bangalore National Highway Road and West by enterprising company and indeed they are situated in a rapidly growing industrial area and therefore, the compensation determined by the Tribunal/Reference Court at Rs. 13,725/-per cent (after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges) was a very low amount and therefore, this Court can enhance the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal as per Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers power on the Appellate Court to do complete justice between the parties. 24. The sale deeds reflecting the higher value should be preferred to the rest as exemplars unless there are strong circumstances justifying the different course. As per decision in State of Madras v. P. Seetha Ramammal and Another AIR 1972 Mad. 170 , it I axiomatic fact that the Tribunal while fixing the compensation had to take into account not only the present purpose, or the present use to which the land is applied, but also any other purpose which is more beneficial to which, in the course of events, it might within a fair and just period of time be applied while that of a owner might do, if he were bargaining with a purchaser in the open market, but due weightage must be given to the existing state of affairs and what is likely to arise immediately after the relevant date for valuation though not to what will happen in the distant future. 25. 25. It is to be noted that the land has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but its potential value also to be taken into account as per decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others V. Collector, Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417 : (1972) 1 SCC 480 . 26. A person whose land has been acquired by the state is entitled to get the compensation and such compensation shall be as per market value on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act as per decision in Shamal bhai Lalu Bhai Patel. V. Additional Special Acquisition Officer AIR 1977 SC 899 : (1976) 4 SCC 513 . This Court has held in Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. R. Kandasamy (2003) 2 MLJ 735 : (2003) 2 LACC 396) (Madras). 27. It is well settled principle of law that the Land Acquisition Officer shall award the market value to the land acquired by following the requirement of Section 23 of the said Act which envisages that certain factors to be taken into consideration for awarding just and reasonable compensation. 28. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to quote the decision in B. Sathi Reddy (died per LRs.) v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Industries) and Another 2001 (Suppl)_ LACC 615 whereby and whereunder it is observed thus “merely following the procedure is not enough and ways and means are to be followed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act and to be followed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Court, since Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India requires that a person shall not be deprived of his property except by the authority of law.” 29. InSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that “ in awarding compensation under the Act, as to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of notification as per Section 4(1) of the Act. InSpecial Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty AIR 1959 SC 429 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that “ in awarding compensation under the Act, as to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of notification as per Section 4(1) of the Act. It is also observed that there are several methods of valuation such as .(1) opinion of experts; .(2) pricepaid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantageous; (3) A number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired.” 30. One cannot brush aside an important fact that rise in prices of lands mere about developing towns is almost a continuous and un-ending phenomenon and the Courts while determining the market value of the acquired lands have been taking judicial notice of both as per decision in Puram Singh v. State of Haryana (1986) 1 PLR 453. 31. Certainly, the market value should not be based on the facts of imagination or the flight of fancy. The market value cannot be calculated with mathematical precision. A certain amount of conjecture is inevitable but the Tribunal/Court should be careful not to go too far in this direction. The true test lies in the armchair of willing vendor could offer to a prudent willing buyer taking all relevant prevailing conditions of the normal market, fertility of land, location stipulated of purpose which it was purchased, its existing potentialities and likely use to which the land is capable of being put in the same condition would offer to pay the price as on date of notification. 32. Significantly, the owner or the claimant should not be put to loss by under valuation but at the same time, the public exchequer should not be put to undue burden by excess valuation. It is the statutory duty of a Court of law to maintain the balance between diverse interest. 33. In fixing the compensation, the value of small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large tract and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. This is the first principle relevant to the matter of fixation of compensation. 33. In fixing the compensation, the value of small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large tract and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. This is the first principle relevant to the matter of fixation of compensation. The second principle is that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction of similar property, a reduction should be given. 34. When the market value is to be fixed on the basis of instances of sale of land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. As per decision in Jogendra Nath Chatterjee and Others v. State of West Bengal AIR 1971 Cal 458 , 460, the value to be found out is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its existing advance and all its possibilities, including any advance due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. Furthermore, the value of the potentiality has to be taken into consideration even where the only possible purchaser is the authority purchasing under powers enabling compulsory acquisition. As per decision in Collector, Jabalpur and Another v. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahangirkhan AIR 1971 MP 32 , 34 while assessing the compensation for the property, sales effected in the locality proximate in time and place are relevant. As per decision in State and Jammu and Kashmir v. Hamida Begum AIR 1979 J&K 47 (OB). 35. Besides the above, if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the rates found in the said documents would be a reliable material to form the basis for determination of the compensation on a later date as per decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Madras v. A.M. Nanjan AIR 1976 SC 651 : (1976) 1 SCC 973 , (compensation awarded in respect of same village valid basis as per decision in State of Rajasthan v. Jeo Raj and Another AIR 1990 Raj 90 ). 36. 36. From the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, what transpires is that .(a) the value of the land should be assessed with reference to the probable use to which it is most likely to be put in the near future and which would give the owner the best return, and not merely with reference to its present use; .(b) the market value must be determined, not according to the present disposition of the land, but according to its most lucrative and advantageous use of disposition and with reference to its future utility. The future utility should be estimated in course with prudent business calculations, and not by mere speculation and impracticable imagination as per decision in Alla-Ulf Haw v. Secretary of State 3 IC 277. 37. The land under acquisition must be valued having regard to all its advantages and drawbacks from a commercial point of view as per decision in Government v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company AIR 1942 Bom 105. .38. Considering the factors where the land has got potential value or not, in Atma Singh (died) through LRs and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under at p. 809 of MLJ: .“5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector Raigarh v. Hari Singh Thakur AIR 1979 SC 472 , Raghuband Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1969 SC 465 and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi (supra). The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector Raigarh v. Hari Singh Thakur AIR 1979 SC 472 , Raghuband Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1969 SC 465 and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi (supra). It has been held in Kaushalya Dev v. L.A.O. Aurangabad AIR 1984 SC 892 and Suresh Kumar v. T.I.Trust AIR 1980 SC 1222 that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.” 39. In another decision in Special Land Acquisition Officer U.K. Project v. Mahaboob and Another (2009) 4 MLJ 137 (SC). The Honourable Supreme Court has observed thus ‘even though the land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings, the Collector is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account.” The Supreme Court further held that, the Land Acquisition Officers seldom make reasonable offer and they tend to err on the safer side and invariably assess very low compensation.” 40. As far as the present case is concerned, the evidence of CW-1 (claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 387 of 2003) is to the effect that the acquired lands are situated near houses, petrol bunks, Srinivasa Poultry, Sundar Cinema Theatre, etc. and the lands are also situated near the National Highway and Poonamallee City and since the Government required these lands for the purpose of providing Outer Ring Road they have acquired the same. In this connection, it is the evidence of R.W.1 (Special Thasildar for land acquisition) that the Data land is situated at a distance of 11/2 kms, from the acquired lands. Though 94 sale deeds were considered for the purpose of comparison in fixing the value of the land at Rs. 1,270 per cent or Rs. 3,136.90 per Are on the basis of registered sale deed dated 111. 1999. .41. Moreover, it is the further evidence of RW-1 that he does not know about the location of the acquired lands and how they are placed. 1,270 per cent or Rs. 3,136.90 per Are on the basis of registered sale deed dated 111. 1999. .41. Moreover, it is the further evidence of RW-1 that he does not know about the location of the acquired lands and how they are placed. Also RW-1 in his evidence has further stated that he does not know the distance in regard to the petrol bunk, marriage halls, business places, factories, hospitals and colleges as to whether they are situated near the acquired lands because of the fact the different Thasildar had passed the award and therefore, he had not seen the lands. 42. The acquired lands are situated in Poonamallee area and bounded on North by Madras-Bangalore National Highways Road and West by enterprising company etc. They are in an advantageous position having the potentiality of development. Though an argument was advanced on the side of the appellant/referring officer that the acquired lands are situated in Nazareth Pettai somewhat at a distance place from Poonamallee and also that the Tribunal had taken into account Exhibits C-1 to C-5 sale deeds pertaining to Varadharajapuram village and took into account the average amount of Rs. 20,585/- being the average value of a cent of a land and after deducting a sum of Rs. 6,861/- it had fixed the land value per cent at Rs. 13,725/-, we take judicial notice of an important fact that the location of the acquired lands are nearby to Business places, Hotel, Cinema Theatre and educational institutions and its proximity to the Madras-Bangalore National Highway Road and considering the prospect of future development, potential value and the probable use of the Government for providing Outer Ring Road, we do not find any material error committed by the Tribunal in determining the market value of the acquired land by taking the average value of Exhibits C-1 to C-5 sale deeds in fixing the same at Rs. 20,585/-per cent. After deducting 1/3rd sum of Rs.6,861/- towards development charges, the value of land determined comes to Rs. 13,725/-per cent. In short, the Tribunal/Reference Court was very much cautious, circumspect and resorted to a conservative approach in determining ;the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,725/-per cent.(After deducting 1/3rd sum of Rs. 6,861/- towards development charges). 43. On the side of the respondents/claimants, C.M.P. Nos. 13,725/-per cent. In short, the Tribunal/Reference Court was very much cautious, circumspect and resorted to a conservative approach in determining ;the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,725/-per cent.(After deducting 1/3rd sum of Rs. 6,861/- towards development charges). 43. On the side of the respondents/claimants, C.M.P. Nos. 266 to 270 of 2008 were taken out under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to mark additional documents viz., sale deeds dated 24. 1997 (Doc. No. 480 of 1997), Document No. 811 of 1997 dated 5. 1997, Document No. 812 of 1997 dated 5. 1997, Document No. 908 of 1997 dated 28. 1997, Document No. 778 of 1998 dated 37. 1998 and Document No. 143 of 1999 dated 12. 1999. In the sales statistics, these documents were shown as S.No. 17,27,28,32,58 and 71 respectively and were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, this Court has allowed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions to meet the ends of justice and permitted the respondents/claimants to mark the aforesaid sale deeds as Exhibits C-6-C-11. Significantly, before the Tribunal, in the common award in LAOPs 387 to 391 of 2003 already Exhibits C-1 to C-5 were marked and witness CW-1 was examined on the side of the appellant/referring officer RW-1 was examined. Therefore, these sale deeds are marked as Exhibits C-6 to C-11. .44. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the land owners are entitled to claim higher compensation than the one fixed by the Tribunal and this Court can invoke its power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass appropriate orders though the respondents/claimants have not preferred any appeal against the original common award passed by the Tribunal. It is true that the mention of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power to the Appellate Court to do complete justice between the parties. Also, Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 permits a Court of law to make a proper order to subserve the ends of justice. It is true that the mention of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power to the Appellate Court to do complete justice between the parties. Also, Order 41 Rule 4 and Order 41 Rule 33 permits a Court of law to make a proper order to subserve the ends of justice. In fact, Order 41 Rule 33 enables the Appellate Court to pass any decree or order which should have been made and to make such further order or decree as the case may be in favour of all or any of the parties even though the appeal is as to part only of the decree and such party or parities may not have filed an appeal. Generally, a Appellate Court should not reverse a decree or vary a decree or order in favour of a party who has not filed any appeal and this rule will prevail notwithstanding the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 33 of the: Code of Civil Procedure. However, resort to the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required to be liberally used but only in exceptional circumstances. 45. In this connection, we deem it appropriate to make a mention that the respondents/claimants had not preferred any appeal against the original award as per Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Also, the respondents/claimants had not preferred any cross-objection as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inasmuch as the ingredients or Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to be resorted to liberally but only in exceptional cases, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the present case is not one where we can exercise our discretionary power to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as such, we negative the claim of the respondents/claimants in regard to the enhancement of compensation. 46. In the light of the detailed discussion and on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case in a cumulative fashion, we find no material error or patent illegality in the common award passed by the Tribunal dated 210. 2004 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003 and viewed in that perspective, these appeals fail. 47. Earlier, this Court in C.M.P. Nos. 2004 in L.A.O.P. Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003 and viewed in that perspective, these appeals fail. 47. Earlier, this Court in C.M.P. Nos. 10938 to 10942 of 2005 on 28. 2005 has passed an order of interim stay on condition that the petitioner/appellant deposits 25% of the amount due under the award in challenge to the credit of L.A.O.P. Nos. 387 of 391 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Poonamallee on or before 211. 2005 failing which the order of stay granted would stand automatically revoked without any further reference to this Court. Further, in C.M.P. No. 8305 to 8309 of 2006 in A.S.No.698 to 702 of 2005, this Court has permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount together with interest accrued thereon till the date of filing of the appeal and directed the balance amount to be invested in any of the nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of three years, renewing and thereafter pending disposal of the appeal and made the interim stay granted on 28. 2005 has absolute. 48. Therefore, the appellant/referring officer is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation under the common award payable by it to the credit of respective LAOP Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Poonamallee within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the respondent/claimant uin concerned LAOPs is directed to file necessary payment due application as per Civil Rights of Practice before the Tribunal and to withdraw the amount to which he is entitled to in the manner known to law and the Tribunal is directed to pass orders on merits with the least possible delay. 49. In the result, the common award passed by the Tribunal viz., learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Poonamallee dated 210. 2004 is affirmed in all respects by this Court for the reasons assigned in these appeals. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 50. The learned Special Government Pleader shall be entitled to separate fee in each of the appeals. Additional documents ordered to be received as per order dated 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 50. The learned Special Government Pleader shall be entitled to separate fee in each of the appeals. Additional documents ordered to be received as per order dated 3. 2010 in C.M.P. Nos. 266 to 270 of 2008 in A.S. Nos. 698 to 702 of 2005 (LAOP Nos. 387 to 391 of 2003) and marked as follows: “TABLE”.