JUDGMENT : [Prayer in AS.No.752/2008:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of CPC against the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in LAOP.No.26/2000 dated 30.03.2007. Prayer in AS.No.827/2010:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of CPC against the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in LAOP.No.49/2000 dated 23.11.2007. Prayer in AS.No.114/2011:- Appeal Suit filed under Order XLIV Rule 1 of CPC against the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in LAOP.No.47/2000 dated 02.11.2006. Prayer in AS.No.115/2011:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in LAOP.No.29/2000 dated 23.11.2007. Prayer in AS.No.28/2015:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in LAOP.No.38/2000 dated 23.11.2007.] 1. All the above appeals arise out of a batch of judgment and decree of AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal in LAOP.Nos.26, 49, 47, 29 and 38/2000 dated 30.03.2007 ; 23.11.2007 ; 02.11.2006 ; 23.11.2007 and 23.11.2007 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals arise out of the common Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to a Notification issued under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 14.11.1997, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. A extent of 7.05.0 Hectares in Neravy Revenue Village in Karaikkal Taluk, was acquired for ONGC for expansion of ONGC Office Complex and Stores at Neravy. A common Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.12.1999 vide Award Proceedings Ref.No.4388/95/B1. 4. In the Award, two different values were adopted in relation to lands located in RS.Nos.199/5 ; 186/2 ; 198/2 ; 198/3 and 186/1 and other Re-survey numbers. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the guideline value for the properties as the Market Value and fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per Are [in LAOP.Nos.26/2000, 47/2000 and 29/2000] and Rs.3,000/- per Are [LAOP.Nos.49/2000 AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 and 38/2000]. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the guideline value for the properties as the Market Value and fixed the market value at Rs.10,000/- per Are [in LAOP.Nos.26/2000, 47/2000 and 29/2000] and Rs.3,000/- per Are [LAOP.Nos.49/2000 AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 and 38/2000]. Aggrieved by the quantum, the land owners have sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and on reference by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court, namely, the Additional District Court, Pondicherry at Karaikkal, entertained several LAOPs. In all the cases, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.22,460/0 per Are and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct a sum equivalent to 15% towards development charges. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Reference Court in the above Land Acquisition Original Petitions, viz., LAOP.Nos.26/2000, 49/2000, 47/2000, 29/2000 and 38/2000, the above Appeal Suits have been preferred by the Requisition Body, namely, M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate [Pondy] appearing for Union Territory of Puducherry, and Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in AS.No.115/2011. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the compensation fixed AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 by the Reference Court was also confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2022 in AS.Nos.417 to 421/2010. 7. The appellant raised several grounds in the Memorandum of Grounds. The main ground raised by the appellant in these batch of cases is that the document which was relied upon by the Reference Court and marked on the claimants' side is not a genuine sale transaction and therefore, the market value fixed on the basis of such document cannot be accepted. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / ONGC submitted that the document that was relied upon by the Reference Court is the document of sale that was obtained in favour of one of the claimants in these appeals when he was a minor and that the said document cannot be relied upon as the witness who is the purchaser under the document, is not even competent to speak about the genuineness of the transaction which happened when he was a minor. Learned counsel then submitted that the acquired lands are not similar to the land which was dealt with under the document of sale which was marked as Ex.P4 in LAOP.No.26/2000 and 49/2000. AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru etc. Vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini and Another reported in AIR 1995 SCW 823 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the marking of certified copies of Sale Deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. 10. A few other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court regarding proof of documents even with reference to cases relating to compensation in the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, were cited before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not heard by the Reference Court and therefore, the judgment and decree of the Reference Court are unsustainable. 12. On the first question regarding the marking of document-Ex.P4 in LAOP.Nos.26 and 49/2000, the 2nd claimant/2nd petitioner was AS.Nos.752/2008 827/2010, 114 & 115/2011 and 28/2015 examined as PW1. It is admitted by her in the proof affidavit that she was a minor on 06.10.1997 when she purchased the property that was conveyed under Ex.P4 dated 06.10.1997. As against the evidence of PW1 with regard to the sale transaction and its genuineness, the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant herein is relevant and the suggestion put to PW1 and the reply are as follows:- 13. From the passage extracted above, not even a suggestion is put to the witness doubting the genuineness of the transaction under Ex.P4 or the relevancy of the document to fix compensation. From the nature of evidence given by PW1 and suggestions that were put to the witness on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court is unable to countenance the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the document Ex.P4 is not a genuine transaction. 14. It is to be pointed out that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act specifically deals with the admissibility of a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act. 14. It is to be pointed out that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act specifically deals with the admissibility of a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act. Contents of certified copies of Sale Deeds are in evidence to prove the transaction recorded in such document. Based on Section 51A, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has held that a document of sale or a sale exemplor can be marked through anyone and it is not necessary that the claimant should examine the parties to the document to prove the genuineness of the transaction in all cases. When the appellant has not questioned the genuineness or bona fides of the transaction before the Reference Court, it is not open to the appellant to canvass this point to challenge the judgment and decree of the Reference Court fixing the compensation by relying upon the said document. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no evidence was let in by the owners of the lands about the sale consideration that was passed under Ex.P4 marked in LAOP.Nos.26 & 49/2000. As pointed out earlier, the property conveyed under Ex.P4 marked in LAOP.Nos.26 & 49/2000 was in favour of one of the claimants and her evidence with regard to consideration passed under the document was not even questioned by way of a suggestion put to the witness when the beneficiary of the document was in box. Therefore, the contention that the document-Ex.P4 is not admissible and that the Reference Court has arbitrarily enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- per Are to Rs.22,460/- per Are based on such document, is not valid and acceptable. 16. The Notification was issued under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.11.1997 and it was published in the Gazette on 09.12.1997 ; whereas the document-Ex.P4 is dated 06.10.1997 and hence, at no stretch of imagination, it can be contended that the document-Ex.P4 was created or surfaced only to boost the market price of the land. Unfortunately in this case, the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the basis of the guideline value. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer collected 45 documents of Sale Deeds in respect of lands around the acquired lands, 44 documents of Sale Deeds were discarded on the ground that they reflected higher value or on other ground. 17. Unfortunately in this case, the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the basis of the guideline value. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer collected 45 documents of Sale Deeds in respect of lands around the acquired lands, 44 documents of Sale Deeds were discarded on the ground that they reflected higher value or on other ground. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on the admissibility of the Sale Deed under Ex.P4 which was marked in every LAOP proceedings cannot be sustained. When the bona fides of the transaction under Sale Deed is not questioned before the Reference Court, this Court cannot entertain such plea. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced a few arguments referring to the Personal Law of Mohamedan to deal with properties and this Court is unable to appreciate such arguments without proper pleading or evidence before the Reference Court. 19. It may be true that the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer can also independently challenged by the Requisition Department for whom the land is acquired as they are very much interested in the quantum of compensation that may be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the case on hand, the Award was passed on 30.12.1999 after issuing notice to the appellant. It is not the grievance of the appellant that the appellant was not put on notice by the Land Acquisition Officer before passing the Award or at the time of Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Despite the LAOPs are pending before the District Court, Pondicherry from the year 2000 and the petitions were disposed of only in March 2007, the appellant / Corporation did not implead itself as a party before the Reference Court even though LAOPs were pending for more than 7 years before the Reference Court and the appellant was aware of the fact that the proceedings are pending for fixing just compensation. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant after this length of time, cannot be considered especially when the appellant has not come forward without any additional documents which would show the market value different from the one that was fixed by the Reference Court. 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant after this length of time, cannot be considered especially when the appellant has not come forward without any additional documents which would show the market value different from the one that was fixed by the Reference Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases that the registered documents in terms of Section 51A of the Act may carry with a presumption of genuineness even though such presumption is rebuttable. Merely when an opportunity was there to the Land Acquisition Officer to question the genuineness of the transaction, this Court is unable to ignore the document-Ex.P4 in LAOP.No.26/2000. From the judgment of the Reference Court, it is seen that the document-Ex.P4 dated 06.10.1997 is well before the Notification under Section 4[1] of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. 21. As per the document of sale, 1 Are and 56 centiare was sold for Rs.42,000/-. Therefore, the Reference Court held that the market value of the land should be fixed at Rs.22,460/- per Are. It is to be seen that the property conveyed under Ex.P4 is in S.No.199/5 which is very near the acquired land. The appellant required the land for commercial purpose. It is admitted that the acquired land is just adjacent to the Central Office of ONGC. The Reference Court has already allowed deduction of 15% towards development charges and this Court is unable to find any irregularity especially when the entire extent is going to be utilised for commercial purpose to increase the storage facility and the commercial activities of ONGC, a public sector undertaking. It is also admitted that several pieces and parcels of lands which were acquired are in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant by way of lease. When the appellant requires the land for their use for their expansion and the purpose and object of acquisition is commercial, this Court is of the view that the acquired lands are surrounded by developed area and the deduction cannot be on multiple counts. Since the entire land is going to be utilised for the purpose, deduction of 15% is also justified. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant did not canvass any other point. Since the entire land is going to be utilised for the purpose, deduction of 15% is also justified. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant did not canvass any other point. As pointed out by this Court in the earlier paragraph, a batch of appeals were already disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2022 in AS.Nos.417 to 421 of 2010. However, different value was fixed based on different sale exemplar. 23. The Reference Court disposed of all the cases in the year 2007. Thereafter, the appeals were filed from the year 2008. Some of the appeals were also filed in the year 2015. Even though the appellant was aware of the judgment and decree of the Reference Court, the delay in filing the appeals show that the appellant was not diligent in pursuing the appeal remedy. This has caused inconvenience to the claimants who are unable to get compensation as per the decree of the Reference Court. The compensation that was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just Rs.10,000/- per Are and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court was Rs.22,460/- per Are less 15% towards development charges, which comes to R.19,091/- per Are. 24. In the connected appeals in AS.Nos.417 to 421/2010 filed by the appellant, the quantum fixed by the Reference Court was only Rs.11,272/- per Are based on different sale exemplar. However, it is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation on the basis of guideline value adopting two different values for the entire land and the document-Ex.P4 was relied upon in all the LAOPs which are the subject matter of these appeals. This Court is concerned with the document that was the basis for arriving at the market value by the Reference Court. 25. When this Court does not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the document-Ex.P4 which was marked in LAOP.Nos.26 and 49/2000, the value cannot be different from the value adopted by the Reference Court in the LAOPs which are the subject matter of these appeals. 26. For all the above reasons, this Court is unable to find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in fixing the compensation. 27. The Reference Court granted the market value at Rs.22,460/- per Are less 15% towards development charges. 26. For all the above reasons, this Court is unable to find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in fixing the compensation. 27. The Reference Court granted the market value at Rs.22,460/- per Are less 15% towards development charges. Apart from the market value, the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and additional market value at the rate of 12% interest per annum from 12.01.1998 to 31.12.1999. As settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to interest in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e., 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum after the expiry of one year on the amount enhanced by the Reference Court. As it has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the claimants are also entitled to interest for the market value plus solatium and additional compensation in terms of Section 23 [1][A] of the Act. 28. In the result, the Appeal Suits are dismissed with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pay all the statutory benefits to the claimants as indicated in this judgment. No costs.