Judgment : Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, in L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1989, the claimant has directed this appeal. 2. A notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published in the Government Gazette, on 06.02.1985, for the acquisition of lands, comprised in Survey No.147/7A1 for the purpose of laying Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway Line. 3. In the said survey number, 10,890 sq.ft., belonged to the appellant/claimant. It is situate in Balakrishnapuram in Dindigul. On 30.03.1988, the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, determined the compensation at Rs.4.50 per sq.ft. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer made reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Tribunal, namely, the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul, and the Tribunal taken the case on file as L.A.O.P.No.23 of 1989. 5. In the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1, A2 and A3, sale deeds, dated 03.03.1985, 13.10.1985 and the sketch map respectively. On behalf of the department, the Land Acquisition Officer Ragunathan has been examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 has been marked. 6. Considering the evidence as well as the submissions of both sides, on 12.04.2005, the Tribunal enhanced the compensation to Rs.6/- per sq.ft. 7. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the claimant has directed this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that Exs.A1 and A2 disclose that the lands in the neighborhood were sold at Rs.12/-per sq.ft. The acquired land is situate in Balakrishnapuram, which is very near to Dindigul Town. Even R.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that the acquired land is near the road and in the vicinity of the acquired land area, there are lot of improvements. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant also contended that when a nearby land, comprised in Survey No.147/7C, was trespassed into by Balakrishnapuram Village Panchayat, in W.A.(MD) No.499 of 2006, on 18.04.2007, the Writ Appellate Court granted compensation at Rs.29/- per sq.ft. Thus, the Tribunal has fixed a very low compensation. In the circumstances, the compensation may be enhanced atleast to Rs.10/-per sq.ft., although it will fetch more rate of compensation. 10. Thus, the Tribunal has fixed a very low compensation. In the circumstances, the compensation may be enhanced atleast to Rs.10/-per sq.ft., although it will fetch more rate of compensation. 10. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that Exs.A1 and A2 came into being only after the issuance of 4(1) notification, so that cannot be taken as relevant sale statistics to determine the compensation and thus rightly it has been eschewed by the Tribunal. The Writ Appellate Court had granted the compensation as against the trespassers. The yardstick for fixing compensation for trespassers cannot be extended to determine compensation for acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act. Except the ipsi dixit of R.W.1 no concrete materials to enhance the compensation. What was awarded by the Tribunal is a reasonable rate of compensation. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that R.W.1 is a Government Official. He has collaborated with acquisition of lands. His evidence is reasonable, real and fair. Evidence of R.W.1 remains unchallenged. 12. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the award of the Tribunal and the records of the case. 13. The claimant whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act should be awarded compensation. It must be fair and reasonable neither low nor high. 14. Admittedly, the appellant owned 10,890 sq.ft., of land, comprised in Survey No.147/7A1. It is situate in Balakrishnapuram and it is in the vicinity of Dindigul Town, almost on the outskirts of Dindigul Town. The land has been acquired for the public purpose of laying Karur-Dindigul Broad Gauge Railway Line. 15. On 30.03.1988, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs.4,50/- per sq.ft. On 12.04.2005, the Tribunal enhanced it to Rs.6/- per sq.ft. Now, we are nearly after nine years. 16. The cross-examination of R.W.1 reveals that the acquired land is near the road. Now, lot of development activities are going on in the vicinity of the said area. This has also been admitted by R.W.1 in his cross-examination. Now, the land values are more than the gold value. There is fluctuations in gold price, but not in the land value. It is on the rise. That is why, people started investing more in land than in gold. Many people have become millionaire by their investment in the lands. It all depends on the location of the land. Now, the land values are more than the gold value. There is fluctuations in gold price, but not in the land value. It is on the rise. That is why, people started investing more in land than in gold. Many people have become millionaire by their investment in the lands. It all depends on the location of the land. Now, in this case, the land is near the road, it has many facilities. Many development activities are underway. 17. The Tribunal eschewed Exs.A1 and A2 from it's zone of consideration, since they came into existence 20 days after the issuance of 4(1) notification. In the Judgment rendered in W.A.(MD) No.499 of 2006, the Writ Appellate Court awarded compensation at Rs.29/- per sq.ft., for the land situate near the neighborhood, but that was for trespass. But, it is pertinent to note that what was awarded is Rs.29/- per sq.ft. 18. Considering all the above relevant aspects, this Court is of the view that the rate determined by the Tribunal is very less. In the facts and circumstances, Rs.9/-per sq.ft., would be fair, reasonable and just compensation. 19. In the result: (i) This appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The Award of the Tribunal, dated 12.04.2005, is modified to the effect that Rs.9/- per sq.ft., is fixed as compensation for the acquired land; (iii) Decree shall be drawn giving all the statutory entitlements; and (iv) In the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.