JUDGMENT : Both the first appeals arise out of a Common Judgment made in L.A.O.P.Nos.73 and 76 of 1996, dated 28.03.2006, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani. 2. L.A.O.P.No.73 of 1996 relates to acquisition of Survey No.46/2b to an extent of 0.08.0 Hectares of land by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Palani. L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1996 relates to acquisition of Survey No.48/2b to an extent of 0.17.5 Hectares of land. Both the lands are situated in Pappampatti Village, Palani. In both the Land Acquisition Proceedings, after enquiry, by a Common Judgment dated 28.03.2006, the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, had determined the compensation as Rs.600/- per cent. In L.A.O.P.No.73 of 1996, the Tribunal had fixed Rs.600/- along with 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% per annum and subsequent interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In L.A.O.P.No.76 of 1996, the Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.600/- along with 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% interest and subsequent interest at the rate of 9% interest. The Government is the appellant as against the said Common Judgment. In the same acquisition proceedings relating to lands in adjacent villages decided by this Court in A.S.Nos.127 to 134 and 87 to 97 of 2007, in similar circumstances and facts, this Court had observed as follows: "8.The Court below has also taken into consideration about the potential value of the land. The Court below has given a factual finding about the fact that there are three revenue villages nearby and there are hospitals, banks and post office situated near the acquired lands. In fact, a perusal of the judgment and decree of the Court below would indicate that the amount fixed by the Court below is very much reasonable. In the judgment reported in CDJ 2003 MHC 751 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Vs. Rathinareddi), the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the market value will have to be fixed by taking into consideration of the transaction that would fetch maximum price and therefore the sale deed which is most advantageous to the claimants alone should be taken into consideration. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also observed that the Court while fixing the valuation should sit in the arm chair of the willing seller and then fix the valuation. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also observed that the Court while fixing the valuation should sit in the arm chair of the willing seller and then fix the valuation. In so far as the valuation fixed for Survey No.244 is concerned, it is seen that even the Land Acquisition Officer has made a distinction between the said land and the other lands on the ground that the said land is fully an irrigational land, being a Nanja land. Therefore, he fixed the valuation at Rs.260/- per cent which has been enhanced to Rs.750/- per cent. Hence, this Court finds that the difference shown for the said land as against the other lands is justifiable and proper. 9. Hence on a consideration of the above said facts and also on considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and decree of the Reference Court do not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." It is to be found that the compensation had been fixed on the basis of Ex.C.1, which is four months subsequent to the date of 4(1) Notification. Similar point has also been urged in the said appeals. 3. In view of the said Common Judgment of this Court in A.S.Nos.127 to 134 and 87 to 97 of 2007 and since there should be consistency in determination of the compensation for the land acquired for the same purpose, I hold that the said findings are also applicable to these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. The Common Judgment dated 28.03.2006 passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.73 and 76 of 1996 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.