JUDGMENT : The first appeal has been laid challenging the Judgment and Decree of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1984, dated 01.04.1993. On a Reference, under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, by the Special Tahsildar (L.A. and A.D.W.), Tiruchirapalli, with reference to the acquisition of lands belonging to the respondents for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars, pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 17.11.1982, it is noted that L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1994 has been taken on file. 2. It is found that as per the case of the appellant, on the basis of the decision to provide house sites to Adi Dravidars, approval for acquiring the lands measuring 4.56 Acres, situated in Alathur Village, Tiruchirapalli Taluk, registered in the name of the respondents herein was accepted and following the same, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 17.11.1982. On completion of the formalities usually observed and after due notice to the respondents calling upon them to participate in the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act and after completion of the enquiry, it is found that draft proposals being submitted to the Government and the same being approved resulted in publication of the Notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 08.02.1983 and after observing the usual formalities, enquiry with reference to the grant of Award was conducted by the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W. & L.A.), Tiruchirapalli and by Award No.18/82-83, dated 29.03.1983, it is found that the above mentioned Officer, based upon the materials placed and in particular, taking into consideration the sale transaction with reference to Item No.65, vide document No.2143, dated 01.06.1981, holding that the market value mentioned therein reflects the true value in the vicinity of the lands acquired and the same had been worked out at Rs.10,000/- per Acre and accordingly, fixed the compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.45,600/- and adding 15% solatium amount to the same, in toto, fixed the compensation or the value of the acquired lands at Rs.52,440/-. 3. 3. The owners of the acquired lands having raised dispute over the award fixed by the above mentioned Officer as above mentioned, it is found that Reference has been made to the Court below and the same has been taken on file in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1994. 4. The owners of the acquired lands, namely, the respondents herein filed a counter contending that even at the time of acquisition of the lands in question, the land was being sold at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per Cent and therefore, the said rate should be taken into consideration and the claimants are entitled to 15% of the solatium and therefore, they prayed for suitable compensation at Rs.2,250/- per Cent + 15% solatium. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings or materials, it is found that in support of the respondents' case, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked and on the side of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence placed before the Lower Court, it is found that the Lower Court considering the rival contentions put-forth by the parties fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.600/- per Cent and accordingly, granted the compensation to the respondents. Aggrieved over the above mentioned award fixed by the Lower Court, it is found that the appellant has preferred the present first appeal. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this first appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the amount of compensation fixed by the Lower Court is correct and justified? and (ii) To what relief the appellant is entitled to? POINT No. I : 8. As regards the acquisition of the respondents' lands for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars, there is no dispute. Similarly, as regards the ownership of the lands acquired vis-a-vis the respondents, there is no dispute. The appellant had fixed the Award for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Acre, in other words, it is found that the value had been arrived at by fixing the rate at Rs.100/- per Cent. The Lower Court, however on the basis of the materials placed before it, had fixed the rate at Rs.600/- per Cent. 9. The appellant had fixed the Award for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Acre, in other words, it is found that the value had been arrived at by fixing the rate at Rs.100/- per Cent. The Lower Court, however on the basis of the materials placed before it, had fixed the rate at Rs.600/- per Cent. 9. In this connection, it is to be noted that according to the case of the respondents, the value of the lands acquired even before the acquisition was at Rs.2,250/- per Cent and therefore, the said value should be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. With reference to the same, reliance was placed upon the Sale Deed, dated 05.07.1982 marked as Ex.P1. However, it is found that the Lower Court has correctly, reasoning that the respondents have not established that the lands acquired and involved in the present lis and the lands concerned in Ex.P1 are of similar nature and in the same vicinity, held that the above said document cannot be wholly taken into consideration for fixing the value of the lands acquired. Therefore, it is found that the only document placed by the respondents for fixing the value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.2,250/- per Cent has been rightly not fully and completely relied upon by the Lower Court. 10. As regards the case of the appellant it is found that Exs.R1 and R2 were placed. On the basis of the same and also on the basis of the records submitted to the Lower Court along with the reference, the Lower Court had found that the appellant though had been provided with materials of the value of the lands in the vicinity by placing 99 sale transactions, the appellant on the basis that 97 sale transactions out of them relate to small bit of lands, house sites and far away from the lands under acquisition, noted that they have been left out of consideration and further the appellant has not taken into consideration the sale transaction in respect of Item No.53 on the basis that the same does not reflect the correct value of the lands in the vicinity and therefore, also noted that the said sale transaction was also discarded by the appellant. 11. 11. As adverted above, the appellant has taken into consideration the sale transaction pertaining to Item No.65 as detailed in the award proceedings and on the basis of the same had fixed the value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Acre. 12. The Lower Court has found that on the basis of the documents placed before the appellant during the course of award proceedings found that the value given in the sale transaction i.e. pertaining to Item No.53 fixing the value of the lands in the vicinity at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per Acre and holding that the lands in the vicinity had been converted into house sites and being used as such and considering the similar nature of the lands acquired and the lands covered under the sale transaction, dated 07.02.1981, and also taking into consideration the value fixed under Ex.P1 cumulatively, fixed the value at the rate of Rs.600/- per Acre. It is thus found that the Lower Court had taken into consideration all the materials placed before it and accordingly and also rightly, fixed the value at Rs.600/- per Cent taking into consideration the sale transaction, dated 07.02.1981. 13. In this appeal, the appellant has not placed any material to take a contrary view to the decision of the Lower Court in fixing the value at Rs.600/- per Cent. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Lower Court has also rejected the contention of the respondents to fix the value of land at Rs.2,250/- per Cent and also not placed reliance upon all the materials placed before the Reference Officer and on the other hand, taking into consideration the sale transaction, dated 07.02.1981 coupled with Ex.P1, had rightly fixed the value at Rs.600/- per Cent and according to him, the value fixed by the Lower Court does not warrant any interference from this Court. 14. In the light of the above discussions, in the absence of any materials placed by the appellant to take a contrary view to the value fixed by the Lower Court and inasmuch as it is found that the Lower Court has also rightly fixed the value at the rate of Rs.600/- per Cent, taking into consideration all the materials placed before the Lower Court, I hold that the value of the acquired lands fixed by the Lower Court is correct and justified. Accordingly, Point No. I is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. POINT No. II : 15. In conclusion, the Judgment and Decree of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in L.A.O.P. No. 10 of 1984, dated 01.04.1993, are confirmed and consequently, the first appeal is dismissed with costs.