ORDER : Challenging the awards passed in C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 2. An extent of 63 cents belonging to the respondents in C.M.A.No.22 of 1998 and an extent of 74 cents belonging to the respondents in C.M.A.No.21 of 1998 were acquired by the petitioner for Adi Dravidar Welfare Schemes. The acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.12,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Before the trial Court, on the side of the claimants Ex.C.1 - Sale deed dated 11.03.1996 was marked and 2 witnesses were examined. On the side of the revision petitioner, R.W.1 was examined and 8 documents Exs.B1 to B8 were marked. 4. It is not in dispute that the acquisition notification was issued on 11.03.1997. The trial Court, taking into account the oral and documentary evidences of both parties, fixed the compensation at Rs.3,488/- per cent. While fixing the said amount, the trial Court, took into consideration Ex.C.1 Sale deed dated 11.03.1996. Under Ex.C.1 Sale deed, an extent of 1296 sq.ft. was sold at the rate of Rs.3,488/- per cent. 5. Mr. Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in the appeals filed by the claimants before the Court below, the claimants have not paid any Court fee, which is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2011 (5) CTC 129 ( Gurusankar vs.Special Tahsidar, Adi Dravidar Welfare), wherein, in paragraph Nos.35 to 37, the Division Bench, has held as follows:- “35. In the light of the law discussed hereinbefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the determination of the amount of compensation payable to the owner of the land or the person interested therein by the Prescribed Authority under Section 7(3) of Act 31 of 1978 is an order having the force of an award and not merely an offer of compensation by the Prescribed Authority. Hence, such an order of determining the compensation can be challenged only by preferring an appeal as provided under Section 9 of Act 31 of 1978. 36. Hence, such an order of determining the compensation can be challenged only by preferring an appeal as provided under Section 9 of Act 31 of 1978. 36. Now, the only question that remains to be answered is as to the amount of Court-fee payable on the memorandum of Appeal filed against an order relating to compensation. In this connection, Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 is quoted hereinbelow: “51. Fee on memorandum of Appeal against order relating to compensation - The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of Appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the Appellant”. 37. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that in case of an Appeal filed against an order relating to compensation for the acquisition of the property, the Court-fee payable shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded or determined and the amount claimed by the Appellant”. 6. Further, the learned Government Advocate submitted that since a lesser extent of 1296 sq.ft. was transacted under Ex.C.1 - Sale deed, the Court below, ought not to have relied upon the said document for fixing the value for an extent of 63 cents and 74 cents respectively. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. On a perusal of the Judgment of the Court below and also Ex.C.1 - Sale deed, it is clear that Ex.C.1 - Sale deed, was executed exactly one year prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification. In the month of March 1996 the land was sold at the rate of Rs.3,488/- per cent. But, the notification was issued one year after the execution of Ex.C.1- Sale deed and the Court below, took into consideration the said sale deed and came to the conclusion that the value of the land would be Rs.3,488/- per cent as on the date of the issuance of acquisition notification. That apart, on a perusal of Ex.B.8, Toposketch, it is clear that the land sold under Ex.C.1 and the lands that were acquired by the revision petitioner are adjoining lands. That apart, on a perusal of Ex.B.8, Toposketch, it is clear that the land sold under Ex.C.1 and the lands that were acquired by the revision petitioner are adjoining lands. Taking this into consideration, the Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the value of the land would be same as in Ex.C.1 sale deed. On the contrary, the petitioner was not in a position to establish that the value of the land in the year 1997 would be much less than what was fixed by the Court below. In the absence of any acceptable evidence produced by the revision petitioner before the Court below, the trial Court has rightly fixed the value of the land at Rs.3,488/- per cent. The Court below also took into consideration that the acquired land situate near the Mysore Highway, Bank, School, vegetable market etc. and fixed the value at Rs.3,488/- per cent. Since the trial Court has rightly fixed the value at Rs.3,488/- per cent, taking into consideration all these aspects, I do not find any reason to interfere with the value fixed by the Court below. 9. So far as the payment of Court fee is concerned, it is settled position that the claimants are liable to pay Court fee as per Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. Further, the Judgment relied on by the learned Government Advocate reported in 2011 (5) CTC 129 cited supra squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In these circumstances, the claimants are directed to pay the Court fee within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In other aspects, the Judgment and decree passed by the Court below are confirmed. 11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner had deposited 50% of the award amount to the credit of C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. Pursuant to the same, the claimants were permitted to withdraw 25% of the award amount. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner had deposited 50% of the award amount to the credit of C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam. Pursuant to the same, the claimants were permitted to withdraw 25% of the award amount. In view of the same, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the balance award amount to the credit of C.M.A.Nos.22 and 21 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made by the revision petitioner, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount together with accrued interest lying in the Fixed Deposit. With these modifications, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs.