Judgment R. Karuppiah, J. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 2.8.2010 in LAOP No.13 of 2009 passed by the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, enhancing the compensation from Rs.550/- to Rs.31,650/- per cent in respect of the lands of the first respondent acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the formation of Outer Ring road, comprised in S.No.300/3 to an extent of 0.03.0 Hectares and S.No.300/4B to an extent of 1.75.0 Hectares, i.e. total extent of 4.39 acres in Village No.19, Chockanallur, the appellant (i.e.) the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Unit-3, Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has preferred this appeal. 2. A perusal of the record reveals that- the second respondent (i.e.) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had requested the Government of Tamil Nadu to acquire the lands for formation of the above said Outer Ring road and pursuant to the said requisition, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued 4(1) Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.123,H & UD Department dated 22.3.1999. After complying the formalities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, finally, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, dated 22.3.2002 in Award No.2 of 2002 in respect of the acquired lands of the first respondent, i.e.1.75.0 Hectares at Rs.2,41,813/- at the rate of market value at Rs.550/- per cent and also for other infrastructure, i.e. pump set, well, etc., the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the award at Rs.7,68,991/- as calculated by Public Works Department. 3. In the above said award, the appellant had taken the statistics relating to the sales that took place in Chockanallur village for a period of three years prior to the date of publication of 4(1) Notification, i.e. 23.4.1996 to 22.4.1999 for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired lands. In the above said village, only 18 sale deeds have been registered during the relevant period and the appellant had discarded all the sale deeds on the grounds that the above said sales relating to Natham lands, house sites, Nanja lands and also meagre extents. In the above said village, only 18 sale deeds have been registered during the relevant period and the appellant had discarded all the sale deeds on the grounds that the above said sales relating to Natham lands, house sites, Nanja lands and also meagre extents. For the above said reason, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the sale deeds relating to villages, namely, Kavalur, Ariyappancherry, Thirumanam and Thirumalisai villages, but for the same reasons already stated, the Land Acquisition Officer had discarded the sale deeds and only taken the data land shown in the sale deed dated 12.2.1999 situated in adjacent village, namely, Thirukoilpathu comprising in Survey No.371/1A an extent of 30 cent which was sold at Rs.550/- per cent and fixed the said value as market" value of the acquired lands of the first respondent and passed the award accordingly. 4. Though the first respondent who was the owner of the lands acquired by virtue of sale deed dated 22.3.1999, however, a reference has been made by the appellant herein under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was taken on file as LAOP No.59 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Court, Poonamallee and the same was ordered in favour of the first respondent on 10.12.2003. 5. After disposal of the above said LAOP, being not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation, the first respondent herein made representations to the appellant for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the same was rejected. Hence, the first respondent had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.25697 of 2005 before this Court and while disposing of the same by order dated 17.3.2009, this Court directed the appellant to refer the first respondent dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. In pursuance of the orders of this Court in the above said writ petition, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court, Poonamallee and the same was taken on file as LAOP No.13 of 2009. 6. In pursuance of the orders of this Court in the above said writ petition, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court, Poonamallee and the same was taken on file as LAOP No.13 of 2009. 6. Before the Reference Court (i.e.) Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, the first respondent/claimant himself deposed as CW.1 and marked five documents as Exs.C1 to C5, namely, i) copy of the Award passed in LAOP No.47 of 2004 dated 25.3.2009, ii) copy of the sale deed dated 4.9.1997, iii) copy of the sale deed dated 9.9.98, iv) copy of the Plan approved by the CMDA, v) combined sketch showing the villages, namely, Vialur, Kozhappancherri, Chockanallur, etc. On the side of the appellant, one Mrs.Kargulali, who was the Special Tahslldar (Land Acquisition) was examined as DW.1 and a copy of the letter dated 24.4.2009 addressed to the Subordinate Court by the Reference Officer alone was marked as Ex.D1. 7. Considering the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant/first respondent, the Subordinate Judge has discarded Ex.C3, i.e. sale deed dated 9.9.1998 produced by the claimant/first respondent on the ground that it relates to Nanja lands. Further the Subordinate Judge has discussed in detail about availability of the road facilities, schools, colleges and Industries", situated nearby to the acquired properties and taken the value of the land shown in Ex.C2 sale deed for fixing the compensation for the acquired lands. In the above said Ex.C2 sale deed, sale consideration was shown at Rs.48,645/- and since the above said property is a meagre extent, 30% was deducted and also deducted 5% towards , developmental charges and arrived at Rs.31,250/- rounded off to Rs.31,650/- per cent for fixing the compensation towards acquired lands of the first respondent. 8. Questioning the quantum of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, namely, Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, the appellant herein filed this appeal suit. 9. Heard Mr.Pasupathy Easwaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant and Mr.N.Sampath, learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/CMDA and perused the entire materials placed before us. 10. Questioning the quantum of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, namely, Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, the appellant herein filed this appeal suit. 9. Heard Mr.Pasupathy Easwaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant and Mr.N.Sampath, learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/CMDA and perused the entire materials placed before us. 10. According to the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that the statistics relating to the sales that took place during three years prior to 4(1) Notification i.e. 23.4.1996 to 22.4.1999 were gathered, viz., 18 sales in Chockanallur village, 20 sales at Kavalcherry village, 8 sales at Ariyappancherry village, 32 sales at Thirumanam village and 3 sale deeds at Thirukovilpathu village. But the above sale deeds were discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that they are relating to Nanja lands or Natham lands or as house sites with meagre extents. Therefore, for fixing the market value in respect of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the sale deed dated 12.2.1999 in respect of an extent of 30 cents dry land in S.No.371/1A situated in adjacent village, namely, Thirukovilpathu since the data land was classified as dry land whereas acquired lands were also classified as dry lands and the Land Acquisition Officer had correctly fixed the value at Rs.550/per cent and accordingly passed an award for 1.75.0 Hectares at Rs.2,41,813/- and for other infrastructures, viz., pump set, well etc., he fixed at Rs.7.68,991/- as calculated by the Public Works Department authorities. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the Reference Court namely Subordinate Court has erred in relying upon Ex.A2 sale deed without verifying the genuineness of the document and also erred in making 30% deduction for the meagre extent and deducted only 5% for the developmental charges instead of 33 1/5% and further Ex.Al copy of the judgment relied on by the first respondent is not relating to the same village, but the Reference Court has mechanically enhanced the market value without proper discussion and therefore, the award passed by the Reference Court is excessive and exorbitant. 12. 12. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting first respondent who is the claimant would submit that the data land taken for fixation of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer is situated far away from the acquired lands and it is only an agricultural land and not suitable for developing house plots and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has wrongly taken the above said data land for fixation of the market value of the acquired lands. He has further submitted that the acquired properties are situated adjoining to the main road which leads to Pattabhiram road on eastern side and also leads to Thirumalisai on western side. The learned counsel further submitted that there are schools, colleges and several factories are situated nearby the villages, namely, Kozhappancherri, Vyalanallur, Pattabhiram and Varadarajapuram and also transport facilities are available throughout 24 hours. Therefore, the Reference Court, considering all the above said factors and also relying on the value of the property stated in Ex.C2 sale deed, correctly calculated the award amount and hence no need to interfere with the award passed by the Reference Court. 13. Both sides have not disputed the quantum of compensation fixed for infrastructure found in the acquired lands of the first respondent, but only challenged the quantum of compensation fixed by the Reference Court towards acquired lands by appellant/Special Tahsildar (L.A.) 14. It is not in dispute that an extent of 2.17.0 Hectares of lands including the first respondent's lands measuring 1.75.0 Hectares situated in Chockanallur village have been acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for formation of the Outer ring Road at the instance of the second respondent, namely, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and 4(1) Notification was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.123 Housing and Urban Development, dated 22.3.1999 and the said notification was also published on 7.4.1999. It is also not in dispute that 18 sales effected during the relevant period in Chockanallur village and also other sales relating Ariyappan, Thirumanam and Thirumalisai villages were discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer since the above said sales relating to Nanja lands or Natham lands or meagre extents sold as house sites. It is also not in dispute that 18 sales effected during the relevant period in Chockanallur village and also other sales relating Ariyappan, Thirumanam and Thirumalisai villages were discarded by the Land Acquisition Officer since the above said sales relating to Nanja lands or Natham lands or meagre extents sold as house sites. Therefore, for fixing the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken as data land for consideration an extent of 30 cents of land comprising in S.No.371/1A in Thirukovilpathu which was sold at Rs.550/- per cent through sale deed dated 12.2.1999 and fixed the same as market value for the acquired lands which are situated at Chockanallur village. 15. It is settled law that while fixing the market value, the Land Acquisition Officer has to consider various factors. The purpose for which the property was acquired, the nature of property acquired, its locational advantages, presence of roads, electricity, educational institutions, hospitals and other infra-structural facilities available in \the area are all relevant for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shaji Karuiakose versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 650=2002-1-L.W 66 indicated the importance of comparable sales method of valuation for determining market value thus:- "3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired" land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land." 17. The positive as well as negative factors to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat , (2005) 4 SCC 789 = 2006-1-L.W. 189, wherein it was held thus: "18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. "19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. "19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small front age compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deterapurchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have somevery special advantage "21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price." 18. In a decision of three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in "Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. ( 2009(1) SCALE 545 )", the positive as well as negative factors indicated in "Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 = 2006-1-L.W. 189)" as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus:- "11. ( 2009(1) SCALE 545 )", the positive as well as negative factors indicated in "Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 = 2006-1-L.W. 189)" as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus:- "11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature, and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its' position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land. 12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom. 13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in " Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State Of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 = 2006-1-L.W. 189)." 19. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in " Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State Of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 = 2006-1-L.W. 189)." 19. As already stated, in catena decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of market value and the amount of compensation and the positive as well as negative factors and the potentiality of the land to be taken into consideration for arriving at market value. Keeping in view of the above governing principles for determination of market value, we have considered the submissions and evidence on record. 20. Admittedly, the acquired lands situated in Chockanallur village and the Land Acquisition Officer had rejected all the 18 sales effected during the relevant period, i.e. 23.4.1996 to 22.4.1999 on the reasonable grounds that they were sold as Nanja lands or Natham lands or small extent of house sites. The above said fact was also not disputed by the first respondent also. 21. In. the above stated circumstances, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the land comprising in S.No.371/1A in Thirukovilpathu village to an extent of 30 cents of dry land which was sold at Rs.550/- per cent on 12.2.1999 for fixing the market value in respect of the acquired lands. 22. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the above said data land is situated far away from the acquired lands and also it is only used as agricultural land and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer. has wrongly taken the said land as data land. It is further pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the sale deeds relating to nearby village, namely, Kolappancherry. It is further submitted that on the side of the first respondent/claimant, five documents were marked, namely, Ex.Cl is copy of the award passed in LAOP No.47 of 2004, Ex.C2 is copy of the sale deed dated 4.9.1997, Ex.C3 is copy of the sale deed dated 9.9.1993, Ex.C4 is the plan approved by CMDA and Ex.C5 is the Topo-sketch of Vyalanallur, Kolappancherry, and Chockanallur village. To prove the market value of adjacent lands, the appellant has failed to produce any document to substantiate the contention except one document, Ex.D1, namely letter addressed to the Reference Court. To prove the market value of adjacent lands, the appellant has failed to produce any document to substantiate the contention except one document, Ex.D1, namely letter addressed to the Reference Court. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that on the side of the appellant, has not even produced the copy of the sale deed which was taken as data land for fixation of compensation for the acquired lands and no reason has been assigned for non production of the above said material document. Therefore, the learned senior counsel pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer wrongly fixed the market value but the Reference Court has correctly fixed the market value on the basis of Ex.C2 sale deed. 23. A perusal of Ex.C4 plan approved by the CMDA and Ex.C5 Topo-sketch produced before the Reference Court by the first respondent/claimant would reveal that the land situated in Thirukovilpathu was taken as data land by the Land Acquisition Officer is far away from Chockanallur village wherein, the acquired lands are situated. It is clearly proved from the above said documents, i.e. Exs.C4 and C5, namely, Plan and Topo-sketch that only Kolappancherry village is nearby to Chockanallur village, than Thirukovilpathu and also adjoining to main road. But the Land Acquisition Officer ,has not considered the sales relating to Kolappancherry village and no reason has been assigned by him. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly rejected the value fixed for the acquired lands on the basis of data land situated in Thirukovilpathu village. 24. Further, a perusal of oral evidence adduced on either side reveals that the acquired lands are situated In a well developed area than the data land. In this regard, the first respondent as CW.l has clearly deposed in his evidence that the acquired lands are adjoining to main road which leads to Pattabhlram road on eastern side and Thirumazhisai on the western side and that the acquired properties are fit for construction of housing colonies and the first respondent was earlier doing cultivation and subsequently, he used the said lands for Industrial purpose, I.e. for manufacturing of bricks and therefore, the acquired lands are of high potential value and fit for construction of Industrial units. He further added in his evidence that there Is an International school called, Vidya International School is situated about 500 meters from the acquired lands and Pattabiram road connects poonamallee town and Pattabiram Railway station and the said Pattablram road is within a radius of 200 meters from the acquired lands. The first respondent also deposed that there are transport facilities available throughout 24 hours and pattabiram Railway station is about 3 kms and Kolappancherry village is within 500 meters from the acquired lands and in the above said Kolappancherry and Vayalanallur villages, there are high schools, elementary schools and there is a Gem Granite factory is situated within 1 km from the acquired lands. Further, in Pattabiram village, Hindu college, Jaya college and several factories, Government Ordinance factory are situated. Thirumalisai town is situated on the western side at about 2 kms away from the acquired lands and there is a highway connecting Chennai- Tirupathi and there are transport facilities throughout 24 hours and also government higher secondary schools and Sidco Industrial estate are there. It is further deposed that Pani Malar Engineering college is only 2 kms away from the acquired lands. Further, there are several large scale, medium scale and small scale industries in and around the acquired lands. It is further deposed by the first respondent that the Fast Track Court Judge fixed the value at Rs.27,000/- in respect of the land acquired from Kolappancherry village and the above said copy of the judgment was marked as Ex.C1 and also marked the copy of the sale deed dated 4.9.1997 executed by Mrs.Mahalakshmi as Ex.C2 and copy of the sale deed dated 9.9.1998 executed by Mr.A.R.Dawood as Ex.C3 sale deed relating to Varadarajapuram village. Therefore, the first respondent prayed for fixing the value at Rs.50,000/- per cent. 25. Per contra, on the side of the appellant, one Kargulali, who . was working as Special Tahsildar (L.A.) was examined as DW.1 She has admitted that she was working in the said office only two' months prior to her examination as witness. She also admitted that she has not seen the acquired lands and not seen the village map. Further, in her evidence, she clearly admitted several factors and the relevant portion of her evidence is extracted as under: 26. She also admitted that she has not seen the acquired lands and not seen the village map. Further, in her evidence, she clearly admitted several factors and the relevant portion of her evidence is extracted as under: 26. A perusal of above said oral testimony of DW.1 shows that DW.1 herself admitted the fact that the acquired properties are nearby main road and situated in an developed area and there are schools, colleges, hospitals, temples are situated in nearby places of acquired lands as contended by the first respondent/claimant. 27. Therefore, a perusal of oral evidence of CW.l and DW.l as well as a perusal of Topo-sketch of the property produced by the first respondent claimant reveal that for fixing the market value in respect of the acquired lands, the Land Acquisition Officer had taken the data land which is situated far away from the acquired lands and he fails to consider the sale deeds relating to the property situated nearby village, namely, Kolappancherry.; On seeing the Topo-sketch produced by the first respondent further reveals that both Chockanallur and Kolappancherry villages are adjacent to each other and both are connected by a main road. The Reference Court also discussed in detail and held that the data land taken by the appellant is far away from the acquired lands and also held that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the value fixed by the Reference Court in LAOP No.47 of 2004 in respect of a land situated in Kolappancherry village for which, a sum of Rs.27,000/- per cent has been fixed and to prove the same, Ex.Cl has been produced by the first respondent/ claimant. The Reference Court has considered the documents, viz., Exs.C2 and C3 sale deeds relating to another village, namely, Varadarajapurm, of which, the Reference Court has discarded Ex.C3 sale deed on the ground that it relates to Nanja lands and the Reference Court has relied on Ex.C2 sale deed dated 4.9.1997 wherein, a land to an extent of 1927 sq.ft. has been sold at Rs.2,15,000/- i.e. Rs.48,645/- per cent. The Reference Court has deducted 30% since the said land was sold as a meagre extent and also deducted 5% towards developmental charges and fixed the market value at Rs.31,650/- per cent. 28. has been sold at Rs.2,15,000/- i.e. Rs.48,645/- per cent. The Reference Court has deducted 30% since the said land was sold as a meagre extent and also deducted 5% towards developmental charges and fixed the market value at Rs.31,650/- per cent. 28. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has wrongly taken the value stated in Ex.C2 sale deed in which the land was sold only a meagre extent of 1,927 sq.ft. And the above said land was a house site, but the acquired lands are agricultural lands of large extent and therefore, the fixation of compensation by the Reference Court relying upon Ex.C2 sale deed is excessive and exorbitant. 29. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, the property mentioned in Ex.C2 is not relating to Chockanallur village where the acquired lands are situated and it is far away from the acquired lands and the said land sold as a meagre extent of 1,927 sq.ft. and therefore, the Reference Court has wrongly fixed the value of the acquired lands based on the said Ex.C2 sale deed. 30. It is not in dispute that as per Ex.C1 award passed in another LAOP No.47 of 2004, the Reference Court has fixed the value for the lands acquired at Rs.27,OOO/- per cent which are situated in Kolappancherry village. As per Topo-sketch produced by the first respondent, the above said village, namely, Kolappancherry village is adjacent to Chockanallur village, where the acquired lands are situated. A perusal of Ex.C1 reveals that in the above said case, 4(1) Notification was issued on 11.9.2000 and the award was passed on 3.9.2003. But in the instant case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 7.4.1999 and therefore, the value of the acquired lands in this case has to be reduced from the above said value fixed in Ex.C1. 31. But in the instant case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 7.4.1999 and therefore, the value of the acquired lands in this case has to be reduced from the above said value fixed in Ex.C1. 31. Considering the fact that except for the lands in the, adjacent village covered under acquisition Ex.C1 in LAOP No.47 of 2004 dated 25.3.2009, where the land value has been fixed at Rs.27,OOO/- per cent, there being no other document produced by the Government to sustain the value fixed at Rs.700/-, including the one which was the basis of arriving at the value of the land under consideration at Rs.550/- per cent, this Court feels that the finding of the Court below, placing reliance on Ex.C1, cannot be faulted with. However, taking note of the fact that the comparable land under Ex.C1 was the subject matter of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11.9.2000, the lands in question herein were taken for acquisition by the Notification under Section 14(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 7.4.1999, we do not find any justification to adopt the same value as had been done in Ex.C1. 32. In the circumstances, taking note of the difference in the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act between the land in question and the land in Ex.C1, the value adopted at Rs.27,000/- in Ex.C1 has to be reduced by 15% which means the comparable land value in Kolappancherry village could be taken as Rs.23,000/- alone per cent. Therefore, the value adopted by the Court below at Rs.31,650/- merits to be set aside and in its place, the value of the subject land has to be worked out at Rs.23,000/- per cent. To that extent, the judgment and decree of the Court below is modified and the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. No costs.