JUDGMENT : N. KIRUBAKARAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Government against the enhancement of compensation at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. for the land acquired from the respondent/land owner about 2.91.0 hectare comprised in S.Nos.164, 165/1, 165/2, 166/2, 246 and 249, located at Mookkanoor village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District for the purpose of providing free house sites for SC/ST people under the Special Act. 2. It is evident from the records that under Section 4(1), notification has been issued on 08.03.1996 to acquire the lands and award was passed on 22.11.1996, determining the land value at Rs.59,237/- per hectare, relying upon data sale deed dated 27.06.1996, in respect of survey No.466/3, which was sold for Rs.38,800/-. Aggrieved over the quantum of the award, the respondent filed an appeal before the Civil Court. The Civil Court, based on Ex.C1 dated 03.04.1995, in respect of land comprised in survey No.883/13, which was sold for a sum of Rs.7,500/- and Ex.C2 dated 24.04.1995, in respect of land comprised in S.No.786, which was sold for Rs.6,300/-, determined the value of the acquired property at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. The said Judgment passed by the Civil Court is being challenged before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.A.Dev Narendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R.Anna Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.A.Dev Narendran, learned Government Advocate would strenuously argue that Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 relied upon by the Civil Court are for smaller extent of properties and the said value cannot represent the true value of the acquired property and he seeks to reduce the compensation amount. 5. However, Mr.V.R.Anna Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that land was acquired as early as on 1996 and the award was passed in 1996 and the civil Court passed Judgment on 23.02.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed Writ Petition, seeking writ of mandamus directing the appellants to deposit the amount and the same was pending before this Court. Thereafter only, the appellants filed the present appeal belatedly. He would further submit that the data sale deed relied upon by the civil Court would represent the correct value of the property. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of this Second Appeal. 6. Thereafter only, the appellants filed the present appeal belatedly. He would further submit that the data sale deed relied upon by the civil Court would represent the correct value of the property. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of this Second Appeal. 6. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in the appeal: (a) Whether the learned Judge justified to enhance the award passed by the appellant based on the document relied upon by the respondent when those documents are smaller extent? (b) Whether the learned Judge justified in holding that the enhancement of award can be made based on the sale deed document which is house site and small extent when the acquired land is agriculture land and larger extent? (c) Whether the learned Judge erred by rejecting the document based on the appellant fixed the value of the acquired land without any valid reasons? (d) Whether the potentiality, classification of the acquired land and the sample document is one and the same. Though the above questions of law have been raised in this appeal, the only question of law that emerges is with regard to determination of value based on Ex.C1 and Ex.C.2 rejecting the document relied upon by the Special Tahsildar. 7. It is evident from the records that the land was acquired as early as on 08.03.1996 and the award was passed on 22.11.1996. The Special Tahsildar relied upon the sale data produced by the authorities and relied upon the sale deed dated 27.06.1996, in respect of S.No.466/3 measuring to an extent of 0.65.6.0 hectare. As rightly pointed out by the civil Court, the sale deed dated 27.06.1996 was not produced either before the Special Tahsildar or before the civil Court and therefore, civil Court rightly rejected the reliance made by the Special Tahsildar with regard to sale deed dated 27.06.1996. If it was not marked before the Special Tahsildar, atleast steps should have been taken to exhibit the same before the civil Court. No such steps have been taken by the appellants. Therefore, this Court confirms the decision taken by the civil Court in not relying upon the sale deed dated 27.06.1996, which was not at all received before the civil Court. 8. No such steps have been taken by the appellants. Therefore, this Court confirms the decision taken by the civil Court in not relying upon the sale deed dated 27.06.1996, which was not at all received before the civil Court. 8. It is contended by Mr.A.Dev Narendran, learned Government Advocate that only smaller extent of lands covered by Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were taken as data sale deeds by civil Court and smaller extents cannot represent the correct value. The very purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to SC/ST people. Moreover, the acquired property is located near Dharmapuri-Arur Highways road and the property is said to have been located near Government hospital, Government High School and other Government offices as pleaded by the respondent in his evidence. It is not denied by the appellants in their evidence. It is also submitted by the respondent that Mookkanoor village is located at a distance of one furlong from the acquired land and it is just ½km away from Ottapatti junction. The officials merely denied the above said locational advantages. 9. Considering the fact that the land was acquired only for providing house plots to the SC/ST people and the Government would not have considered and acquired the land unless it is fit to be used as housing plot, which is located near the Mookkanoor village and since the property is located near main road, vehicles for transportation are available, the trial Court rightly relied upon Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, which are anterior atleast one year to Section 4(1) notification dated 08.03.1996 and determined the value rightly. When the lands were acquired for providing house sites, the house sites which have already been sold, even before the acquisition under 4(1) notification, has got potential or being used as house sites and therefore, there is nothing wrong in relying upon Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 as data sale deeds. The very fact that about one year ago itself, the surrounding lands have been sold for housing sites would denote the value of the acquired property. Therefore, the Court below is justified in determining the value at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. The Court below has deducted 25% towards development charges and after deducting the development charges only Rs.15/- per sq. ft. was fixed. Hence, the same is confirmed. 10. Therefore, the Court below is justified in determining the value at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. The Court below has deducted 25% towards development charges and after deducting the development charges only Rs.15/- per sq. ft. was fixed. Hence, the same is confirmed. 10. For the above reasons, the questions of law raised in this appeal are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. 11. Taking into consideration that the 4(1) notification was issued on 08.03.1996 and award was passed on 22.11.1996 and Civil Court’s Judgment was passed on 23.02.2017, there is no justification for the appellants to postpone the payment of compensation. Therefore, the appellants are directed either to pay compensation amount along with other benefits, directly to the respondent account through RTGS or deposit before the concerned civil Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the appellants are directed to appear before this Court on 04.02.2019. In fine, the appeal fails and the same dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs. For compliance or appearance of the appellants call on 04.02.2019.