JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to set aside the decree passed in LAOP No.7 of 1991, dated 07.10.2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. Challenging the award passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankari in LAOP No.7 of 1991, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above appeal. 2.1 An extent of land measuring 1.75 acres situated in Sankari Village, Salem District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing E.S.I. Dispensary and staff quarters and E.S.I. Local Office with Staff Quarters. 2.2 Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.07.1985. After conducting enquiry under section 5A, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,05,512.75. Challenging the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants raised objections and sought for enhancing the compensation. The mater was referred to the Reference Court, viz., Subordinate Court, Sankari, under section 18(1) of the Act. 2.3 Before the Reference Court, on the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 9 documents Exs.C-1 to C-9 were marked and on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, R.W.1 was examined and 4 documents Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. Reference Court, by its Judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2005, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 61,04,000/- together with solatium, interest etc. 2.4 The Reference Court, while coming to the conclusion that the value of the land on the date of acquisition was Rs.80/- per sq.ft., took into consideration the sale deeds marked as C-1 to C-3. 2.5 The Land Acquisition Officer, while fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,05,512.75/- took into consideration the sale deed dated 13.06.1985, marked as Ex.R4 before the Reference Court. On a perusal of Ex.R4, it could be seen that an extent of 55 cents was sold for a sum of Rs.20,000/- by a sale deed dated 13.06.1985 in Survey No.132/3A. 3. It is not in dispute that the land in Survey No.132/3A is about 2 kms. away from the land sought to be acquired under section 4(1) notification dated 19.07.1985. The claimants documents, marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3 would establish that the value of the land would be more than Rs.80/- per sq.ft. 3. It is not in dispute that the land in Survey No.132/3A is about 2 kms. away from the land sought to be acquired under section 4(1) notification dated 19.07.1985. The claimants documents, marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3 would establish that the value of the land would be more than Rs.80/- per sq.ft. It is also pertinent to note that the land sold under Exs.C-1 to C-3 situate within a distance of 100 meters from the land sought to be acquired. 4. Taking into consideration the sale deed produced by the claimants, the Reference Court, fixed the value of the land at Rs.80/- per sq.ft., totaling Rs. 61,04,000/- for the extent of 1.75 acres in Survey Nos. 2241/2B2 and 241/2B3. 5. The appellant has not produced any contra evidence to establish that the value of the land would be less than Rs.80/- per sq.ft. 6. The Reference Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by both sides,fixd the value at Rs.80/- per sq.ft. i.e. Rs. 61,04,000/- for the entire extent of 1.75 acres. Challenging the award passed by the Reference Court, the State has filed the above appeal. 7. Since the Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale deeds produced by the claimants which were prior to the date of 4(1) notification and that the lands which were sold under Exs.C-1 to C-3 are within the distance of 100 meters of the land sought to be acquired, has rightly fixed the value a Rs.80/- per sq.ft. That apart, the Land Land Acquisition Officer was not able to establish that the value of the land would be less than Rs.80/- per sq.ft. 8. Since the claimants have established the value of the land would be Rs.80/- per sq.ft. on the date of issuance of section 4(1) notification by adducing oral and documentary evidences, we do not find any error in the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. In such view of the matter, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.