Burden is upon the claimants/petitioners to prove the value of the lands acquired.

E.PADMANABHAN, J.

The above appeals have been preferred by the Land Acquisition officer challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Poonamallee in LAOP Nos:462, 455, 456, 484, 486, 450, 454, 452 and 451 of 1987 respectively.

2. Heard Mr.R.Ashohan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first appellant in all the appeals, Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appering for the second appellant in all the appeals and Mr.V.Lakshminaraynan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in A.S.Nos:1154 to 1157 of 2001 and Mr.Veeraraghavan for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, appearing for the respondent in A.S.No.1202 and Mr.T.V.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in A.S.No.1204 of 2001.

3. Vast extent of identical land measuring 135.85 acres, in Kadaperi village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ) by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 23.1.1985, 13.2.1985 and on the other dates closely following thereof. But, there is no appreciable gap between one Sec.4(1) Notification and another Notification.

4. At the first instance, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.125.85 in respect of a portion and for the remaining portion at Rs.110/= per cent. On a Reference at the instance of the land owners, the learned Subordinate Judge of Poonamalee enhanced the market value of the acquired lands at different amounts. Challenging the same, appeals were preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.

5. On the ground that documents relating to comparable sales have not been marked by examining the concerned persons, this court set aside the judgement and award and remitted the matter to the court below in a majority of the appeals. Some of the appeals came to be taken up by the other Division Benches after the decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V.Narasiah, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 530.

6. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. V.Narasaiah, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 530 it has been held thus:-

"Under section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act it is open to the Court to act on the documents regarding the transaction recorded in such documents. However, that will not prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the transaction recorded therein to adduce other evince to substantiate their stand regarding such transactions. But it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of Section 51-A, the position would remain the same as before."

7. Thus it is not absolutely necessary to examine the parties to the document, but it is sufficient if certified copy of the sale deeds are produced and marked through the parties to the Claim Petition. Such of those appeals which were not remanded and pending were also taken up and have been disposed of by three different Division Benches on merits.

8. The appeals which were remanded also has been enquired into, documents were marked and the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in those cases also enhanced the market value and fixed the market value at Rs.4875/= per cent as on 13.2.1985, 23.1.1985 etc., on which dates Section 4(1) Notifications were published. As against those enhancement also, the present appeals have been preferred and they are consolidated at the joint request of counsel on either side.

9. Innumerable number of appeals were disposed of by this Division Bench as well as by earlier two different Benches of this court adopting the valuation of the land as fixed by a Division bench consisting of P.Shanmugam and A.Subbulakshmi, JJ., in Annammal (died) and others Vs. Special Tahsildar (LA), reported in 2001 (II) MLJ 82 and also a Division Bench of this court consisting of A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy and A.Kulasekaran, JJ., in A.S.Nos:579, 590, 601 of 1992, 1146/93, 1028, 1029 of 1992, 1