Claimant can claim any amount before Court as compensation.

A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.

1. These appeals have been filed against the orders passed in the original petitions by the Reference Court namely Sub-Court,Tiruvallur. In all these appeals the State is the appellant.

2. For the purpose of implementing Krishna Water Scheme, the State of Tamil Nadu had to acquire lands including the lands that are the subject matter in all these appeals. These lands are comprised in various survey Numbers namely 273/1., 2,3,4,5,11,12,13,15,17,18 in Movur Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The respondents in these appeals are the land owners. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 24. 91. After calling for the objections and complying with the formalities the land acquisition officer acquired the lands. Before the land acquisition officer, the respondents landowners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per cent. The land acquisition officer after holding the enquiry passed an award on 22. 92 fixing the value of the lands at Rs.100 per cent which is equal to Rs.247 per are. Not being satisfied with the said award of compensation, the respondents land owners sought reference to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Land Acquisition Court, the respondents/claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000 per cent. The Reference Court fixed the compensation payable to the respondents at Rs.3,000 per cent. The Reference Court infact, relied on the sale deed which has been marked as Ex.P4 dated 5. 91.

3. Beingaggrieved by such enhancement, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Krishna Water Supply Project Scheme, Tiruvallur has filed these appeals.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State made three-fold submissions, namely

.(i) The Reference Court has not considered the other documents placed before it by the parties and has fixed the value of the land acquired on the basis of the sale transaction under Ex.P4 which is a post 4(1) notification sale.

.(ii) The Reference Court ought not to have relied on the said sale deed Ex.P4 inasmuch as none connected with the said documents was examined before the Reference Court.

(iii) While, before the Land Acquisition Officer, respondents/claimants claimed only Rs.300 per cent, before the Reference Court made enhanced claim, namely at the rate of Rs.5,000 per cent which is not permissible in law. But, however, the Reference Court entertained the claim and has fixed the compensation at Rs.3,000 per cent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would inter-alia contend that the Reference Court relied on Ex.P4 since the land that was the subject matter in the said document is similar to the lands that are the subject matter in these appeals so also similarly situated. There is no bar for taking into consideration under the Act the post notification sales while fixing the value of the land. With regard to the second point the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the respondents intact claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000 per cent even before the Land Acquisition Officer. Alternatively, the counsel also submitted that even assuming that the respondents/claimants made a claim of Rs.300 per cent only before the land acquisition officer, in view of the clear provision namely Section 25 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 there is no bar for making such a claim.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the contentions putforth by the respective parties three questions arise for consideration.

1. Whether the Reference Court was right in placing reliance on Ex.P4 when no one connected with

said transaction was examined?

2. Whether the post notification sales can be considered for the purpose of fixing the value of the land?

3. Whether it is open to the landowners to make enhanced claim of compensation before