JUDGMENT (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for ADW Schemes Act 31/78 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree made in L.A.C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 dated 31.08.2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal modifying the award made in Award No.11/95-96 dated 22.02.1996 passed by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Namakkal.) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, the Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Tahsildar (ADW), Namakkal, has filed the above appeal.) 2. An extent of 2.40 acres of land belonging to the respondents in Elur Village in Namakkal Taluk, Salem District was acquired for providing house sites for Harijans. The Notification was issued on 28.05.1995 and an Award was passed on 22.02.1996. Taking into consideration the Data Sale Deed dated 09.09.1995, the Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land at Rs.50,862/- per acre and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,40,378/- for the entire extent of 2.40 acres. Not satisfied with the Award passed by the Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Before the Court below, on the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses, viz., C.W.1 & C.W.2, were examined and 1 document, viz., Ex.C.1 dated 06.11.1995 was marked. On the side of the respondent, 2 documents, viz., Exs. R.1 & R.2 were marked. 4. The Subordinate Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Acquisition Officer from Rs.50,862/- per acre to Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Subordinate Court, after deducting one-third for development of the land, awarded Rs.1,60,000/- per acre, thus, awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- for the entire extent of 2.40 acres. 5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above Second Appeal. 6. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the Second Appeal: 1) When the Court below had erred in placing reliance on Ex.A1 where under a small extent of land classified as house site were conveyed where as the land acquired is classified as agricultural land and measuring an extent of 0.97.0 hectare? 6. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the Second Appeal: 1) When the Court below had erred in placing reliance on Ex.A1 where under a small extent of land classified as house site were conveyed where as the land acquired is classified as agricultural land and measuring an extent of 0.97.0 hectare? 2)Whether the reliance placed by the Court below on Ex.A1 is not in contravention of judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1995 (5) SCC 426 whereunder the Apex Court has prescribed the guideline that small extent of land cannot be relied upon for determination of compensation for larger extent of land? 3)Whether the Court below had erred in not making necessary deduction towards development charges especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court judgment reported in 2003 (12) SCC 334 whereunder the Apex Court prescribed the percentage of deduction at 53%? 4)Whether the Court below had erred in not appreciating the provision of Section 8 of the Act 31/78 which clearly stipulate that nature and classification of land under acquisition as on date of 4(1) notification is the criteria for fixation of market value and not the probable usage of the said land? 7. Mr.Edwin Prabakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the Court below ought not have relied upon Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 06.11.1995 for the reason that the said document is subsequent to the issuance of notification dated 28.05.1995. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Acquisition Officer has rightly taken into consideration the Data Sale Deed dated 09.09.1995 and awarded a compensation of Rs.50,862/- per acre. 8. The Court below rejected the Data Sale Deed on the ground that the subject matter of the land in the Data Sale Deed dated 09.09.1995 is about 3 kms away from the acquired lands. The Sub Court relied upon Ex.A1 Sale Deed dated 06.11.1995 produced by the claimant and awarded the sum of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. 9. The appellant was not in a position to establish that the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Court is on the higher side. When the Court below has fixed the compensation based on Ex.A1 Sale Deed and also the oral evidences let in by the parties, we do not find any irregularity in awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. 10. 9. The appellant was not in a position to establish that the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Court is on the higher side. When the Court below has fixed the compensation based on Ex.A1 Sale Deed and also the oral evidences let in by the parties, we do not find any irregularity in awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. 10. For the reasons stated above, we find no ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Court, Namakkal. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 11. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,615/- to the credit of C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal. 12. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount to the credit of C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit being made by the appellant, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.