JUDGMENT : S. ANANTHI, J. This appeal by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Divisional Engineer [Highways], Project Division, Madurai, is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.11.2017 in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai. The respondent is a Trust called Valaiveesi Theppakulam Trust represented by its three trustees who were the erstwhile landowners. 2. The facts which have led to the impugned order are brought out as hereunder: 2.1. The Highways Department during 2004 sent a requisition to the State Government for acquisition of vast extent of lands in T.S.No.16/2, etc. in West Madurai, Madurai South Taluk for the construction of road over bridge at KM 2/10 of National Highways 49, Extension near Periyar Bus Stand-Ellis Nagar, Madurai City under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'TN Act 34 of 2002']. The Government granted administrative sanction for the project during 2006 and proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the provisions of TN Act 34 of 2002. The other details may not be of much relevance to decide the issues in the present appeal and we may straight away go to consider the facts relating to the lands owned by the respondent Trust. 2.2. The lands stood in the name of the Trust represented by its three trustees, comprised in T.S.No.35/2 [Old T.S.No.6/1] measuring an extent of 0.0813.0 sq.m. The land owners appeared for the award enquiry and filed their objections in writing, in which they stated that an extent of 4780 sq.ft. of land was sold by the Trust to one Tmt. P.Meera by sale deed dated 15.07.1996 in Document No.1812/1996. But, however the said purchaser did not appear for the award enquiry and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer could not decide upon the apportionment of compensation. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer observed that the respondent being a Trust, it has to obtain permission for sale of the Trust property and for purchase of properties and the amount of compensation would also fall within the scope of such transactions and therefore, the compensation amount payable to the acquired portion of land has to be kept in Court deposit and accordingly, directed the compensation amount to be deposited into the Civil Court. The land Acquisition Officer with regard to the valuation took note of the sale statistics for a period of three years from 27.06.2003 to 26.06.2006 and placed reliance on data sale deed No.25, wherein an extent of 1,400/- sq.ft. with the superstructure in T.S.No.1562/2 was sold for Rs.7,00,000/- by sale deed dated 28.08.2005, registered as Document No.2351/2005 and after deducting the value of the superstructure worked out the value per square feet at Rs.409.46. Thus, taking into consideration the said sale, the market value of the lands which were subject matter of acquisition was determined at Rs.409.46 per sq.ft. [Rs.4,407 per square meter]. 2.3. The respondent being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer filed an application for enhancement of compensation which was referred to the VI Additional District Court, Madurai and the reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012. Before the District Court, the respondents had stated about their land holding and as to how the Tahsildar erroneously classified a portion of the land as Government poromboke and the respondent Trust had to challenge the same by initiating legal proceedings and ultimately, the matter attained finality pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and necessary rectification/correction has been done in the revenue records and that the respondent Trust is the rightful owner of the land. As rightly observed by the District Court, we are not required to go into the issues pertaining to he patta which was granted in favour of the respondent Trust and that a portion of the land was classified as Government poromboke and subsequently pursuant to intervention by Court the lands stood restored in the name of the respondent Trust. Before the District Court, the respondent contended that the lands which was the subject matter of acquisition is situated in close proximity to the railway station and Periyar Bus Stand and it is situated in the heart of Madurai City. Further, there is good bus connectivity from Periyar Bus Stand to Arapalayam Bus Stand, Anna Nilayam Bus Stand and Mattuthavani Bus Stand. Therefore, it was submitted that the lands are located in a prime area. Further, the lands are surrounded by railway quarters and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has also constructed houses, there are hospitals, there is a bus depot apart from individual private houses, commercial establishments, Government offices, cinema theatres, etc. Therefore, it was submitted that the lands are located in a prime area. Further, the lands are surrounded by railway quarters and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has also constructed houses, there are hospitals, there is a bus depot apart from individual private houses, commercial establishments, Government offices, cinema theatres, etc. The respondent submitted that the lands in close proximity to the subject lands have been sold at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. and therefore prayed for enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,000/- per fq.ft. 2.4. The Department/appellants before us resisted the claim for enhanced compensation once again pointing out about the discrepancy in the patta, etc. which argument was rightly eschewed by the District Court. Further, it was contended that all relevant factors were taken into consideration and the compensation was determined and the land owners have been paid solatium at 30% and 12% additional amount and total amount of Rs.58,82,161 has been awarded which is fair and reasonable compensation and prayed for sustaining the same. 2.5. Before the District Court, the first respondent herein, namely, Mr.D.Balasubramanian, one of the trustees examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A19. On the side of the Department, the Revenue Officer examined herself as D.W.1 and marked three documents, namely, Exhibits B1 to B3. The District Court after taking note of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, took note of Ex.A15, which is the guideline value fixed by the Government for the area in question for the year 2008-2009 and also the order in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2009 marked as Ex.B2, wherein the compensation has been fixed at Rs.850 per sq.ft., but refused to accept the same and held that the guideline value fixed by the Government shows the value at Rs.1,400 sq.ft. and also taking note of the sketch which was filed by the Department before the Court that the property is a corner property and it is a main junction and considering the locational advantages of the property, etc. and also taking note of the sketch which was filed by the Department before the Court that the property is a corner property and it is a main junction and considering the locational advantages of the property, etc. and that the lands which are subject matter of the other orders are situated away from the lands of the respondent Trust and referring to Exhibits A13 and A14, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer has himself while issuing notice has mentioned about the locational advantage of the property as it is situated in the Kennet Hospital junction, held that the guideline value which has been fixed at Rs.1,400 per sq.ft. as seen from Ex.A15, would be just and proper to be taken as the correct value of the property and compensation has to be paid at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are before us by way of this appeal. 3. Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the District Court erroneously enhanced the compensation from Rs.409.46 per.sq.ft. to Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. without any material to prove the claim made by the respondent, erstwhile land owner. Further, it is submitted that the District Court failed to consider that the land acquired is not situated in Kennet Hospital road junction and it is situated opposite to Kennet Hospital and the respondent/claimant have not proved by producing any material that the acquired land is situated in Kennet Hospital road junction. Further, it is submitted that the compensation has been rightly fixed at Rs.409.46 per sq.ft. with 12% interest from the date of notice till the date of award with 30% solatium and totally Rs.56,93,096/- was paid as compensation. Further, it is submitted that the District Court failed to note that in a similar case in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2009, the Court had awarded only Rs.850 per sq.ft. and the copy of the orders were marked as Exhibits B1 and B2 and without taking note of the same, the Court ought not to have fixed Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment of the learned District Court and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. and the copy of the orders were marked as Exhibits B1 and B2 and without taking note of the same, the Court ought not to have fixed Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment of the learned District Court and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant submitted that the learned District Court had carefully analysed the oral and documentary evidence placed by the claimant before it, took note of locational advantage of the land that it was a property in the road junction which was a very important road junction and after noting the distinguishing features of the property in question, the Court took into consideration Ex.A15 which was the guideline value for the year 2008-2009 and adopted the same for determining just and fair compensation for the lands which were acquired and prayed that the order may be confirmed. 5. We have elaborately heard Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 6. The short issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned District Court could have ignored the orders passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2009, wherein the Court in respect of the land comprised in S.No.34/1 which was also acquired for the same project, directed compensation to be paid at Rs.850/- per sq.ft. and whether the learned District Court was right in adopting the guideline value fixed by the Government and awarded compensation of Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. 7. As per the scheme of the relevant Land Acquisition Act enquiry is required to be made for determination of the compensation to be paid to the land looser. The competent authority who is vested with power to determine the compensation payable should exercise independent Judgement as to the correct basis of valuation. The Act gives wide discretion to the concerned Officer as to the scope of the enquiry to be conducted by him and as to the matercials which he may take into consideration to make an award. The competent authority who is vested with power to determine the compensation payable should exercise independent Judgement as to the correct basis of valuation. The Act gives wide discretion to the concerned Officer as to the scope of the enquiry to be conducted by him and as to the matercials which he may take into consideration to make an award. If the value of the land can be directly estimated by the value of the property in the neighbourhood, then that is the best manner of estimating the value of the land acquired, provided that there has been a sale of the land at or about the time when the acquisition was notified at the first instance. Due allowance can always be made and taken into consideration in fixing the value of the acquired land, having regard to the market price of the neighbouring lands. While fixing the value, the potentiality of development of the area abutting the developed lands fetching higher prices should be given due weightage. If the land has potentiality as building site, the market makes allowance for it and as a consequence the market value of the land increases for the purposes of compensation. In determining the market value of land, immediate contiguity to a highway or a road commonly known as frontage adds to the value of the land. It is to be borne in mind that a reference to a Court is not an appeal against the award as the reference Court is required to treat the proceedings as an original one before it. It has to determine the market value afresh on the basis of the materials produced it by either side. Further the guideline value fixed by the Government for the purpose of collecting stamp duty while registering an instrument cannot form the sole basis for determining market value of the land acquired. 8. When a Court while fixing compensation for a land acquired, it has to consider market value of acquired land, sale price in sale deeds of nearby land and then guideline value. It cannot be fixed solely on the basis of gudeline value. Admittedly, the guideline value of the property is Rs. 1,400/- per sq.ft. 9. 8. When a Court while fixing compensation for a land acquired, it has to consider market value of acquired land, sale price in sale deeds of nearby land and then guideline value. It cannot be fixed solely on the basis of gudeline value. Admittedly, the guideline value of the property is Rs. 1,400/- per sq.ft. 9. In the case of R.Sai Bharathi V. J. Jayalalitha, reported in 2004(2) SCC 9 : 2004 SCC (Cri.) 377, while examining the issue in the context of a case relating to disproportionate assets the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: ..... “22. The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value... 24. This scheme of the enactment and the Rules contemplate that guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the true or correct market, value, undue emphasis on the guideline value without reference to the setting in which it is to be viewed will obscure the issue for consideration. It is clear, therefore that guideline value is not sacrosanct as urged on behalf of the appellants, but only a factor to be taken note of, if at all available in respect of an area in which the property transferred lies”. 10. In terms of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the guideline value fixed by the Government for the purposes of determining the stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act cannot be regarded as the final value of the land as it is only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. Before we examine as to whether the learned District Court was right in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. Before we examine as to whether the learned District Court was right in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per sq.ft. solely based on the guideline value was a correct procedure, we need to consider as to whether the Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market value of the land had conducted a proper enquiry as is required to be conducted by him and whether there was an independent assessment of all factors relevant and germaine. Paragraph VII of the award dated 31.03.2009 deals with valuation. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the sales which took place for a period of three years from 27.06.2003 to 26.06.2006 and it is mentioned that there were 45 sale transactions during the said perioid. The Land Acquisition Officer took note of the data sale deed No.25, wherein an extent of 1400 sq.ft. together with superstructure was sold at Rs.7,00,000/- and after deducting the value for the superstructure worked out the land value at Rs.409.46 per sq.ft. and held the same reflects the true market value of the land under acquisition. 11. We find that the Land Acquisition Officer did not discuss as to the nature of the property which was acquired from the respondent and how the property can be related to the property which was the subject matter of sale deed in Item No.25. Had such an exercise be done by the Land Acquisition Officer, the procedure adopted by him could not be faulted. Since large extent of land was acquired for the purpose of constructing road over bridge, it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer to discuss as to the nature of each of the property which have been acquired, especially, when the properties are located in the heart of the Madurai City. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned District Court was right in redetermining the compensation payable to the respondent, land owner. However, while doing so the learned District Court was solely guided by the guideline value fixed by the Government for the purposes of computing and collecting stamp duty. This could not have been done by the learned District Court. Therefore, to that extent, an error has crept in in the impugned order passed by the learned District Court. However, the Court has taken into consideration the location of the property by taking note of a sketch which was presented before the Court. This could not have been done by the learned District Court. Therefore, to that extent, an error has crept in in the impugned order passed by the learned District Court. However, the Court has taken into consideration the location of the property by taking note of a sketch which was presented before the Court. However, the error committed by the learned District Court is in not comparing the lands owned by the respondent with the other lands which are abutting the respondent's property or situated at a fair distance from the respondent property. Had that exercise been done by the learned District Court, we would not have had any hesitation to confirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. However, we find that such exercise has not been conducted. In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether the matter has to be remanded to the learned District Court for fresh consideration. 12. In our considered view, such exercise will work great prejudcie to the respondent, the erstwhile land owners, more particularly, when the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2006 and the award passed on 31.03.2009 and the impugned order was passed by the learned District Court on 23.10.2017. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this Court can modify the amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Court by taking note of the various factors which we have noticed. The appellants would contend that the Court ought to have followed an earlier order in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009 dated 12.04.2012, wherein the compensation was fixed at Rs.850 per sq.ft. The Court in the said decision largely relied upon the deposition of the claimant who mentioned that the guideline value of the property was Rs.850 per sq.ft. Therefore, the Court took note of the evidence of the claimant and Exhibits C1 to C5 which were all sale deeds executed between 2004-2005 and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.850 per sq.ft. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the guideline value is Rs.1,400 per sq.ft. and the location of the property is undoubtedly in a more advantageous location than the property which is subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009 as the guideline value fixed by the Government itself is higher than that of the value fixed by the property in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009. and the location of the property is undoubtedly in a more advantageous location than the property which is subject matter of L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009 as the guideline value fixed by the Government itself is higher than that of the value fixed by the property in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009. Therefore, the learned District Court was not in error in not adopting and following the decision in L.A.O.P.No.6 of 2009. Thus, considering the entire factual matrix and the documents placed before the learned District Court, we are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per sq.ft. would be just and reasonable. 13. In the light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation for the lands acquired from the respondent Trust is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft. and the appellants are directed to re-compute the compensation by reckoning the rate at Rs.1,000/- per sq.ft., calculate the interest thereon at 12% and solatium at 30% and deposit the entire compensation amount so re-determined to the credit of E.P.No.133 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.