The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of market value at square feet rate for acquired lands and the principles for deduction of development charges as per the decisions of the Honble Apex court.

This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 212. 1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Thirupathur in L.A.O.P.No.52 of 1991. For convenience, the ranks of the parties before the lower Court are maintained in this judgment.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands measuring an extent of 0.15.0 hectares in S.No.415/2C, 0.20.0 hectares in S.No.415/3, O.40.5 hectares in S.No.416/2, 0.21.5 hectares in S.No.417 /1 and 0.25.0 hectares in S.No.418/1A in Peddur Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No.5/90-91 dated 2. 1991 assessing a sum of Rs.11,000/-per acre towards compensation. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. During enquiry before the Sub Court, claimant was examined as P.W.1. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked.

4. The trial Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.11,000/- per acre to Rs.3.33/- per sq.feet.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Government filed this appeal on various grounds.

6. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, the learned Special Government Pleader (A.S) appearing for appellant and Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned Special Government Pleader would submit in his argument that the lower court had wrongly fixed the value at Rs.3.33 per sq.ft, where as the acquired lands were punja lands and the principle of fixing the value for punja lands at square feet rate is prohibited by the principle laid down by the Honble Apex court. He would further submit in his argument that the enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.11,000/- per one acre has been wrongly enhanced by the lower court. He would further submit in his argument that the judgment of the Honble Apex court reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 219 (INDUMATI CHITALEY vs. GOVT. OF INDIA AND ANOTHER) for the principle that fixing of market price at square feet basis for larger extent of lands is not sustainable in law. He would again submit in his argument that the data land as described in Ex.B2 is a punja land with all features similar to the lands acquired. He would also submit that lower court did not assign any reasons for relying upon Ex.A1- a sale deed in respect of house site which cannot be applied to the present case. He would also submit that the claimant had only asked for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- per one acre but the lower court had awarded more than Rs.1000/-per one cent by fixing value at Rs.2.66/-per sq.ft which is highly excessive. He would also submit that the said award of compensation is against the principles laid down in the Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. He had also cited a judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in 1997 1 SCC 249 (TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPN. vs. S.P. SINGH AND OTHERS) to the said proposition of law. He would therefore request the court that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is perfectly alright and the enhancement of compensation by the Tribunal is beyond all propositions and it is more than 10 times the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore it is liable to be set aside. He would also request that the appeal be allowed after setting aside the enhancement of compensation allowed by the lower court and to fix the market value in consonance with the finding reached by the Land Acquisition Officer.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit in his argument that the lower court was correct in fixing the value at Rs.2.66/