The main legal point established in the judgment is that the market value of acquired land should be determined based on the comparable sales method, and the higher value reflected in those sales should be adopted as the market value of the acquired land.

The referring officer is the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962 of 1997. The claimants figure as respondents in the said appeals. A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 are the appeals preferred by the claimants in which the referring figures as respondent.

2. An extent of 26 cents comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A1 and an extent of 1.29 acres comprised in Survey No.604/1A1A3 making a total area of 1 acre 55 cents in Ambattur village was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for use as Villivakkam -Avadi Road and Ambattur Byepass Road, based on the requisition made by the Highways and Rural Works Department. After the decision to acquire the land was approved and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted award enquiry and passed an award in his award No.2/1988 dated 04.03.1988 awarding compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.872/- per cent. The total market value of the land was fixed at Rs.1,35,160/-. A sum of Rs.40,548/- was added as solatium @ 30% of the market value. A sum of Rs.48,568.70P was awarded as additional market value @ 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of award and thus a total sum of Rs.2,24,276.70P was awarded as total compensation payable to the land owners/ interested persons. As each one of the claimants was entitled to 1/4 share in the above said property acquired by the government, the said amount was apportioned equally among them. The claimants received the amount under protest claiming that the amount awarded as compensation was too low and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for fixing a reasonable amount as compensation. Accordingly, four references were made to the Sub-court, Poonamallee under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same were taken on file by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee as LAOP Nos.204, 206, 207 and 209 of 1988. After claim statements and objections were received, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee conducted a common trial in which one witness was examined as C.W.1 and five documents were marked as Ex.C1 to C5 on the side of the claimants. One witness was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R3 on the side of the Referring Officer.

3. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, heard the arguments advanced on either side and considered the evidence in the light of such arguments. Upon such consideration, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed on the basis of Ex.C2 after allowing a deduction of 20% for conversion of larger extent into house sites or commercial sites and for developmental charges. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,600/-per cent and awarded enhanced compensation which included 30% solatium on the market value and increase in the market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4 (1) Notification till the date of Collectors award. The learned Subordinate Judge also directed payment of interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum.

4. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decrees of the trial court, the State through the Referring Officer, has preferred A.S.Nos.959 to 962/1997 for reduction of the compensation amount awarded by the court below. The claimants have come forward with A.S.Nos.262 to 265 of 2000 for further enhancement of the compensation. All the eight appeals have been heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.

5. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) representing the appellant in A.S.Nos.959 to 962