JUDGMENT : N. Sathishkumar, J. This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the enhancement of compensation granted by the Ist Additional Sub-Court, Erode. 2. Heard Mr. P. Gunasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. There is no representation for the Respondents. 3. By G.O. Ms.No. 91, Industries Department, dated 27.02.1991, the Government has approved the proposals for acquisition of 9.11.5 Hectares of lands comprised in R.S. Nos. 166/1 to 166/7, 404/1 to 404/4, 405/1 to 405/12, 422/1 to 422/20, 423/1 to 423/13, 424/1 to 424/14 situate at Ingur Village, Perundurai Taluk, for formation of Industrial Development Corporation. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 19.08.1992. It was published in the newspapers on 14.08.1992 and 15.08.1992 and in the locality on 17.09.1992. 4. Pursuant to the said Notification, for acquisition of 9.11.5 hectares of lands in R.S.Nos. 166/1 to 166/7, 404/1 to 404/4, 405/1 to 405/12, 422/1 to 422/20, 423/1 to 423/13, 424/1 to 424/14, situate at Ingur Village, Perundurai Taluk, following the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act namely Section 5A enquiry and Section 6 Declaration, an award was passed in award No. 3/1995 on 15.09.1995, by the Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition TACID, Unit-2, Perundurai. Before passing the award, the Land Acquisition Officer took note of the fact that about 76 sale transactions had taken place during the period of three years immediately preceding the date of Notification under Section 4(1). Out of them, 21 transactions were rejected on the ground that the lands are not covered within the surroundings of less than a Mile. 5 sale transactions were rejected on the ground that the lands are situate near by the road junctions. 27 sale transactions were rejected on the ground that they were sold for the lesser value. Four sale transactions were rejected on the ground that they were sold between the relatives with an intention to show the more value. Four sale transactions were rejected on the ground that the lands were sold along with the well. Five sale transactions were rejected on the ground that the lands were situated far away. Two sale transactions were rejected on the ground that they were classified as garden and sold for more value. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer has accepted nine sale transactions at Sl. Five sale transactions were rejected on the ground that the lands were situated far away. Two sale transactions were rejected on the ground that they were classified as garden and sold for more value. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer has accepted nine sale transactions at Sl. Nos. 48 to 56 for the reason that they were situate within the surroundings of a Mile and they were similarly classified as that of the acquired lands and they were sold to the Weavers Cooperative Society. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Officer took note of the sale transaction at Serial No.50, in which 0.90 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.351/4 was sold for Rs.26,730/- i.e. Rs.29,700/- per acre, which was sold to the Weavers Co-operative Society and registered as document No.1210, dated 26.08.1990. Based on the said transaction, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at Rs.29,700/- per acre. Since the Claimants have received the compensation under protest, the Land Acquisition Officer has made References under Section 18 of the Act, and they were taken on file by the Sub-Court, Erode in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1995. 6. On the side of the claimants 6th Claimant examined himself as C.W.1 and three other witnesses were also examined as C.W.2 to C.W.4 and seven documents were marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. Ex.C.1 is the Certified copy of the order dated 31.7.2000 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 43/97; Ex.C2 is the copy of the Government Order dated 7.7.1989 declaring the Perundurai Taluk as Backward Taluk; Ex.C.3 and Ex.C4 are the sale deeds dated 29.8.1991; Ex.C5 is the sale deed dated 3.9.1992; Ex.C6 is the copy of sale deed dated 15.09.1992; Ex.C7 is the copy of the Judgment dated 7.3.2005 in L.A.O.P. No. 13/2002. 7. The retired Special Tahsildar, who has acquired the lands was examined as R.W.1 and five documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R5. Ex.R.1 is the Award No.3 of 1995. Ex.R2 is the copy of sale deed dated 28.11.1994; Ex.R3 is the copy of sale deed dated 15.09.1995; Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 are the consent letters. 8. The learned trial Judge, while fixing the compensation, has taken note of the sale transactions under Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 sale deeds dated 29.8.1991. Under Ex.C3 sale deed dated 29.8.1991, an extent of 11.05 cents comprised in R.S.No.522/4 has been sold for Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs.4,350/- per acre. 8. The learned trial Judge, while fixing the compensation, has taken note of the sale transactions under Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 sale deeds dated 29.8.1991. Under Ex.C3 sale deed dated 29.8.1991, an extent of 11.05 cents comprised in R.S.No.522/4 has been sold for Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs.4,350/- per acre. Under Ex.C4 sale deed dated 29.8.1991, an extent of 5.05 cents have been sold for Rs.24,000/- which comes to Rs.4,375/- per cent. The learned trial Judge has also taken note of the evidence of C.W.2 who is the vendor of Ex.C3. C.W.2 to the effect that the purchaser has negotiated with him to purchase the lands under Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 at Rs.7,000/- per cent, and it was purchased for Rs.80,500/-. Ultimately, the learned trial Judge after making deductions towards the developmental charges, has fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved over the enhancement of compensation made by the learned trial Court, the appeal came to be filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 9. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the enhancement of compensation made by the learned trial Court, he has fairly conceded for the compensation fixed by the learned trial Court, since the learned trial Court has made reasonable deduction towards developmental charges. However, so for as the escalation of price and other aspects, the learned Additional Government Pleader cannot make out any case before this Court. 10. In the above background, now, the only point for consideration is: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court enhancing the compensation is sustainable or not? 11. The Point :- From the evidence of the Claimants and the Respondent and the documents exhibited on both sides, it could be seen that C.W.2 who is the vendor of Ex.C3 has deposed that the purchaser of the lands under Ex.C3 and C4 has negotiated with him to purchase the same at Rs.7,000/- per cent, and it was purchased for Rs.80,500/-. In fact, under Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 sale deeds dated 29.8.1991, an extent of 11.05 cents comprised in R.S. No. 522/4 has been sold for Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs.4,35,000/- per acre and an extent of 5.05 cents have been sold for Rs.24,000/- which comes to 4,37,500/- per acre. In fact, under Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 sale deeds dated 29.8.1991, an extent of 11.05 cents comprised in R.S. No. 522/4 has been sold for Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs.4,35,000/- per acre and an extent of 5.05 cents have been sold for Rs.24,000/- which comes to 4,37,500/- per acre. Furthermore, the evidence of C.W.1 to C.W.4 would clearly show that the lands in and around the Ingur Village have been sold as house sites, factory sites etc., during 1989-92, as the area was fast developing and the lands acquired are very close to Perundurai to Kadappamadai road and N.H.47 Coimbatore road and had the potentiality for house sites and for commercial usages and are close to the Schools and industries and the market value per acre at the time of Section 4(1) Notification was Rs.3.00 lakhs. The above facts were not denied by R.W.1 during the cross-examination. The Land Acquisition Officer has not given satisfactory evidence for rejection of most of the sale transactions collected by him while fixing the Award amount. The learned trial Judge taken in to consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence, has rightly fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, after making reasonable deduction towards developmental charges. 12. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also fairly conceded for the compensation fixed by the learned trial Court, since the learned trial Judge has made necessary deduction towards developmental charges. Hence, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the learned trial Court and is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned trial Court is confirmed. The point is answered accordingly. 13. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.