JUDGMENT : 1. This first appeal had been filed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Tuticorin, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, challenging the judgment and decree in LAOP No.10 of 1989, by the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, dated 23.07.2002. 2. The respondent in this appeal did not appear before this Court, even though notice was issued and the name and address of the respondent had been printed in the cause list. 3. L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1989 had been filed by the Special Tahsildar(LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Tuticorin, against Virutchithammal, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It had been stated that by Award No.1 of 1987, dated 10.08.1987, 4.20 acres of land in Meelavittan Village, had been acquired for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation at Rs.4,500/- per acre. The claimant had sought compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 4. The Tribunal had framed the following issue for consideration: “Whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct?” 5. During trial, on the side of the claimant, she was examined as PW1 and Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 documents were marked. These included two sale deeds dated 04.04.1984 and 31.07.1984. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, oral evidence was not adduced, but two documents were marked, namely, field plan and the order of the Tahsildar. 6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, had refixed the compensation at Rs.22,000/- per acre and also granted 30% solatium and interest at 12% per annum. Costs were also granted. Challenging that award, this first appeal had been filed by the Special Tahsildar, (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Tuticorin. 7. The following points arise for consideration in the first appeal: (1) Whether the compensation fixed by the Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Tuticorin should be interfered with? (2) Whether the procedure adopted in fixing the compensation at adhoc basis by the Tribunal was proper? 8. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, pointed out that the relevant sale deed had been chosen by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the Court below had ignored the same and had also failed to note that the claimant's lands were situated far away from the developed areas, like, bus stand and railway station. The acquired lands were manavari dry lands. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, pointed out that the relevant sale deed had been chosen by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the Court below had ignored the same and had also failed to note that the claimant's lands were situated far away from the developed areas, like, bus stand and railway station. The acquired lands were manavari dry lands. It was also pointed out that the claimant had not produced any record in support of her claim. The learned Additional Government Pleader further stated that the compensation granted by the trial Court should be interfered with. 9. At the time, when the appeal was filed, the appellant filed C.M.P.No.16788 of 2003 seeking interim stay. By order dated 28.10.2003, interim stay was granted on the following lines: “Interim stay on condition that the petitioner / State deposits the entire amount as per the judgment of the Reference Court along with interest and solatium, within a period of twelve weeks from today.” 10. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 03.07.1983. The award was granted at Rs.4,500/- per acre by award dated 10.08.1987. Challenging that, the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, Tuticorin, had filed L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1989 before the Subordinate Court, Titucorin. The Tribunal did not consider Ex-C1 and Ex-C2, but at on adhoc basis, fixed compensation at Rs.22,000/- per acre. Before this Court, even though the respondent was not served and the name and address of the respondent was also printed in the cause list, unfortunately, the respondent did not chose to participate in the judicial proceedings. 11. The Tribunal had fixed compensation at Rs.22,000/- per acre. However, Ex-R2 reflects that the value of the land was fixed at Rs.4,560/- per acre. It is seen that the neither the appellant nor the respondent have come forward to assist the Court by producing the documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal has fixed a very arbitrary rate. It is seen that the acquired lands were situated 3 km away from Tuticorin-Palayamkottai Road and the Railway line. Ex-C1, dated 04.04.1984, reflects that Velayutha Konar had conveyed the lands to Alagesa Perumal for a total consideration of Rs.31,200/- per acre. By Ex-C2, dated 31.07.1984, Gunavathi Ammal had purchased the lands from Durairaj Nadar and others for a total consideration of Rs.800/- cent, this would mean that the value of the land per acre Rs.8,000/-. 12. Ex-C1, dated 04.04.1984, reflects that Velayutha Konar had conveyed the lands to Alagesa Perumal for a total consideration of Rs.31,200/- per acre. By Ex-C2, dated 31.07.1984, Gunavathi Ammal had purchased the lands from Durairaj Nadar and others for a total consideration of Rs.800/- cent, this would mean that the value of the land per acre Rs.8,000/-. 12. The 4(1) Notification in the present case was issued on 03.07.1985. The Tribunal had not adopted any particular method to fix the land price. In the absence of additional materials, the average between the rate in Ex-C1 and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is taken as the value of compensation by this Court. Accordingly, the average of Rs.37,200/- and Rs.4,500/- is Rs.17,850/- per acre and I hold that the said amount would be a just and fair compensation for the acquired lands. 13. Accordingly, the first appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree in LAOP No.10 of 1989, dated 23.07.2002, is modified. The compensation is fixed at Rs.17,850/- per acre. The other direction regarding 30% solatium and interest at 12% per annum is retained and are not interfered with. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14. The appellant / State is entitled to withdraw the balance amount, which was deposited by them in view of the direction given by this Court in the interim stay petition in C.M.P.No.16788 of 2003.