JUDGMENT : These Appeal Suits in A.S. Nos. 117 and 240 of 2009 have been filed by the Referring Officer, challenging the judgment and decree, made in the land acquisition proceedings, dated 17.12.2002 in LAOP Nos. 27 and 28 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padhmanabapuram, respectively. 2. These Appeal Suits in A.S.Nos.117 and 240 of 2009 have been filed by the respondent namely, the Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Adi Dravidar Welfare, Padhmanabapuram, Kanniyakumari District, in LAOP.Nos.27 and 28 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padhmanabapuram, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2002, wherein the learned Subordinate Judge had fixed the compensation for the land acquired at Rs.2,825/- per cent and also granted a sum of Rs.1,000/- per cent toward severance compensation and had also brought a compensation for the rubber trees which were in the acquired land and also for plantation of rubber trees respectively. 3. M.P(MD)Nos.4 and 5 of 2010 have been filed by the appellant, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to file three additional documents, namely, Advocate Commissioner's report, sketch and statement of a private individual, by name Sundarnath respectively. 4. L.A.O.P Nos.27 and 28 of 1992 arose out of land acquisition proceedings against the holding of lands by two brothers. Both the brothers jointly owned 4 acres and 3 cents of dry land in Survey No.231/2A in Valvachagostam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. Out of the entire area of 4 acres and 3 cents, a total area of 1 acre was acquired. Since each brother was entitled to 50 cents, separate references were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer. The name of two brothers were P.Ponniah Nadar and Ponnusamy Nadar. Since Ponnusamy Nadar had expired, his wife Annakkili, his three sons P. Sundaranath, P. Javahar Backiyanath, P. Sudhakar Backiyanath, were shown as the persons interested in the land acquisition proceedings. 5. A.S.No.117 of 2009 related to acquisition of 50 cents belonging to P. Ponnaiya Nadar, who died and his wife and children were brought on record. They were Saraswathi Ponnaiya, Kamaraj Backiyanathan, Ujan Backiyanathan, Andal Ramani. Pending the appeal proceedings, the 3rd respondent Ujan Backiyanathan died and his widow and children were subsequently brought on record. They were Vijaya Rani, U. Bamik Rathna (minor) and U. Blesshik Rathna (minor). The minors were represented by their mother Vijaya Rani. They were Saraswathi Ponnaiya, Kamaraj Backiyanathan, Ujan Backiyanathan, Andal Ramani. Pending the appeal proceedings, the 3rd respondent Ujan Backiyanathan died and his widow and children were subsequently brought on record. They were Vijaya Rani, U. Bamik Rathna (minor) and U. Blesshik Rathna (minor). The minors were represented by their mother Vijaya Rani. Consequently, in A.S.No.117 of 2009 there were seven respondents, including the deceased 3rd respondent Ujan Backiyanathan. 6. In A.S.No.240 of 2009, the respondents were, the legal representatives of Ponnusamy Nadar, namely, his wife Annakkili and his three sons Sundaranath, Javahar Backiyanath, Sudhakar Backiyanath. Since the grounds raised by the learned Government Advocate and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents are similar and since the issues raised by the appellant and the respondents are one and the same in both the appeals, both the appeals are being disposed of, by this common judgment. 7. It must also be mentioned that in both the appeals, the appellant had filed M.P(MD).Nos.4 and 5 of 2010, under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, seeking to produce three additional documents, which are similar in both the applications. These documents are the copies of the report and sketch of the Advocate Commissioner and the statement of a private individual. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that among the three documents, the sketch had been marked as Ex.R1 and Commissioner's report had been marked as Ex.X1. It has been further pointed out that the statement now sought to be produced is by the private individual Sundaranath, who is actually the 2nd respondent in A.S.No.240 of 2009. It had been pointed out that the said statement said to have been given before the Special Tahsildar, has no evidentiary value and consequently, the learned Counsel for the respondents urged the Court that both the M.P(MD).Nos.4 and 5 of 2010 cannot be considered by this Court. 8. It is also seen that the said statement has no date and explanation has not been given as to why the same is not produced during the trial proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the statement has no evidentiary value before this Court and consequently, I hold that both the M.P.(MD)Nos. 4 and 5 of 2010 have to be dismissed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the statement has no evidentiary value before this Court and consequently, I hold that both the M.P.(MD)Nos. 4 and 5 of 2010 have to be dismissed. It is also seen from the records as a matter of fact that the former Government Advocate had actually made an endorsement in both the applications stating as follows:- “Since these Additional documents were marked as Exhibits before the tribunal. I am not pressing this petition. Sd/-...... The counsel for the appellant.” This also strengthens the view of the Court that both the applications have to be dismissed. 9. In so far as the grounds of appeal in both the appeal suits are concerned, the learned Government Advocate stated that the award with respect to the lands mentioned in both the appeals dated 28.02.1992, related to the acquisition of one acre (0.40.5 hectare) situated in Valvachagostam Village in Kalkulam Taluk in the Registration Sub District of Palliyadi in Kanniyakumari District. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare and Land Acquisition Officer, Padhmanabapuram, had originally fixed as compensation, a sum of Rs.1,26,168/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Eight only) for the entire area of one acre. It is seen that the 4(1) notification was approved in G.O.Ms.No.214, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes Welfare Department, Dated 26.10.1990 and was published in the Government Gazette on 14.11.1990. Subsequently, enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was posted to 17.01.1991. Individual notices under Rule 3 of the rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, were served on the registered holders on 24.12.1990. Objections were also received. The acquisition was to provide house sites to the landless poor most backward class people of Valvachagostam Village. During the said proceedings, 261 sale deeds relating to Valvachagostam Village and 116 sale deeds relating to Veeyannoor Village were taken for consideration. 10. Among these sale deeds, the sale of 15 cents of dry land comprised in R.S.No.232/3 of Valvachagostam Village was taken into consideration. This sale deed was dated 15.06.1989, registered as Document No.1129 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Palliyadi. It was stated that the said land was similar to the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.868/- per cent. He also fixed the value of trees at Rs.300/-. He also granted 30% Solatium. This sale deed was dated 15.06.1989, registered as Document No.1129 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Palliyadi. It was stated that the said land was similar to the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs.868/- per cent. He also fixed the value of trees at Rs.300/-. He also granted 30% Solatium. Finally, the total amount for one acre was fixed at Rs.1,26,168/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Eight Only), which was equally apportioned between Ponnaiya Nadar and the family of his brother Ponnuswamy Nadar. 11. Thereafter, a reference was made dated 11.05.1992, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal namely, the Subordinate Judge, Padhmanabapuram, took the two references, as L.A.O.P.No.27 of 1992 relating to the 50 cents of land in the name of Ponnuswamy Nadar's family and L.A.O.P.No.28 of 1992 in the name of Ponnaiya Nadar. Before the learned trial Judge, the claimants contented that the amount of Rs.868/- per cent was very low. It was further contented that the entire area is on the western side of the National Highways No.47. It had been stated that there is no road frontage for the balance of lands of 3 acres and 6 cents. Consequently, the value of that land had also fallen. It had been further stated that there were 217 rubber trees. It had been further stated that the lands were near Bhagavathy Temple at Valvachagostam Village and there were also Schools, Market, Church and such other infrastructures. Consequently, it was stated that the compensation should be fixed at Rs.15,000/- per cent and also severance compensation at Rs.7,500/- per cent and further the cost of planting rubber trees at Rs.11,700/- and the yield for 20 years at Rs.4,40,000/- should have been granted and further it should have been granted with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of possession, till date of the payment. 12. The learned Trial Judge who considered both LAOP Nos.27 and 28 of 1992, passed separate judgments in both cases dated 17.12.2002. The reasoning given in both the judgments are same. 13. Before the learned trial Judge, in LAOP.No.27 of 1992, Kamaraj Backiyanathan was examined as P.W1 and Sahul Hameed, Inspector of Land Acquisition Department was examined as R.W1. The claimants marked the sale deed dated 07.04.1989 as Ex.P1 and gift deed dated 21.05.1987 as Ex.P2. The reasoning given in both the judgments are same. 13. Before the learned trial Judge, in LAOP.No.27 of 1992, Kamaraj Backiyanathan was examined as P.W1 and Sahul Hameed, Inspector of Land Acquisition Department was examined as R.W1. The claimants marked the sale deed dated 07.04.1989 as Ex.P1 and gift deed dated 21.05.1987 as Ex.P2. On behalf of the respondents the sketch dated 17.06.1991 was marked as Ex.R1 and the Sale deed dated 15.06.1989 was marked as Ex.R2. The report of the Commissioner dated 24.01.1995 was marked as Ex.X1. 14. In the other LAOP No.28 of 1992, Annakkili was examined as P.W1 and Sahul Hameed, Inspector of Land Acquisition Department was examined as R.W1. The claimants marked the sale deed dated 07.04.1989 as Ex.P1 and the gift deed dated 21.05.1987 as Ex.P2. On behalf of the respondents the sketch dated 17.06.1991 was marked as Ex.R1 and the Sale deed dated 15.06.1989 was marked as Ex.R2. The report of the Commissioner dated 24.01.1995 was marked as Ex.X1. 15. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge granted an additional compensation of Rs.1,957/- per cent, apart from the compensation of Rs.868/- per cent granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and also granted severance compensation at Rs.1,000/- per cent and also granted the loss due to the cutting of rubber trees at Rs.2,20,000/- and also further granted a sum of Rs.5,855/- towards planting of fresh rubber trees and further granted solatium of 30% and also interest from 14.11.1990 till date of payment at 12% per annum. This award was granted uniformly in both the LAOP Nos. 27 and 28 of 1992. 16. Challenging the same, the Government is on appeal before this Court. The learned Government Advocate stated that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into account the sale deed with respect to Survey No.232/3, which was marked as Ex.R2, whereby 15 cents were sold for a sum of Rs.13,000/- by a sale deed dated 15.06.1989. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation at Rs.868/- per cent. The learned Government Advocate further pointed out that for the remaining 3 acres and 3 cents, severance compensation was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per cent. The learned Government Advocate consequently challenged the grant of compensation as above. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation at Rs.868/- per cent. The learned Government Advocate further pointed out that for the remaining 3 acres and 3 cents, severance compensation was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per cent. The learned Government Advocate consequently challenged the grant of compensation as above. With respect to compensation granted for the loss of rubber trees and towards planting of fresh rubber trees, the learned Government Advocate stated that a reasonable amount can be fixed. 17. A perusal of the awards under appeal shows that the learned trial Judge has taken into consideration, Ex.P2 which is a gift deed and according to the same, had granted the additional compensation of Rs.1,957/- per cent. With respect to this Ex.P2, it is seen that the value mentioned in the same is Rs.2,825/- per cent. I, necessarily, have to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer, granting compensation at the rate fixed in Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is a gift deed registered as document No.885 of 1987 dated 21.05.1987. It is a gift given by a father to his son. It relates to 10 cents of land. Both the donor and the donee have not been examined in Court. Consequently, I hold that there is force in the contention to interfere with the judgment granted by the learned trial Judge, in so far as the value of Rs.2825/- per cent fixed is concerned. But, there is no contra evi on record. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out the sketch of the land and stated that the land acquired for National Highways 47 and stated that valuable land had been acquired. Moreover, the learned Counsel also pointed out that the remainder portion of the land has only one foot pathway and consequently, the said land value dropped drastically. Taking into consideration all these facts and also the time lapsed from the date of acquisition, I hold that in the absence of any reliable evidence produced by both sides, this court will necessarily have to fix the value at a rate which is a fair compensation. 18. One factor which has been lost sight during the proceedings is the development cost. This cost is a natural burden on development of the acquired lands into housing sites. In 2001 1 MLJ 698 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode Vs. 18. One factor which has been lost sight during the proceedings is the development cost. This cost is a natural burden on development of the acquired lands into housing sites. In 2001 1 MLJ 698 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode Vs. Meenakshiammal (died) and others) wherein a Division Bench of this court had held that the development charges should be fixed at 33%. Since there is no contra evi to distinguish the value in Ex.P2, though I have observed that the value therein at Rs.2,825/- per cent can be interfered with, I hold that in the absence of any other evidence, interest of both parties would be served by deducint 1/3rd value under development costs. This would come to Rs.942/-. However, since this is a new issue which has not been addressed, I hold that rounding off the compensation at Rs.2,000/- per cent would serve the ends of justice. 19. Accordingly, I hold that the compensation amount can be fixed at Rs.2,000/- per cent. With respect to severance compensation of Rs.1,000/- I am not inclined to interfere with the same. It is a fact that the acquired land is rectangle in shape and the entire frontage of the road has been acquired. It is also seen from the report of the Commissioner Ex.X1 and Rough sketch Ex.R.1 that there is only one foot path way to the existing lands. Consequently, the severance compensation of Rs.1,000/- per cent, is not interfered with. The other compensation amounts towards the rubber trees and the cost of planting fresh rubber trees are also not interfered with. 20. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed and the connected MPS are dismissed. No costs. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent as stated below:- (a) The compensation is fixed at a total amount of Rs.2,000/- per cent. (b) The other awards relating to severance compensation and the value for the rubber trees and planting of rubber trees as awarded by the court below are confirmed. (c) 30% of solatium as granted by the court below is also confirmed. (d) With respect to rate of interest, 9% interest per annum from 14.11.1990, till the date of trial Court order i.e. 17.12.2002 and thereafter 6% interest per annum from 18.12.2002 till the date of realisation are granted.