The court has the authority to set aside a judgment and remand the matter for a denova trial if the lower tribunal's decision is found to be without proper basis.

This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.144 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet.

2. About 1 acre 50 cents of land in S.Nos.56/2A2B and 56/2A1 in Sulakkal Village, Pollachi taluk was acquired by the government for the purpose of constructing houses for the people belonging to the Adi-Dravidar community.

3. After following the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer has published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the gazette dated 28.09.1990. On the basis of the data land in S.No.14 under which 2 acres and 48 ½ cents of dry land in S.Nos.366/2 & 366/3 of village, was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- under Document No.950/88 dated 24.03.1988 of the Sub-Registrars Office, Pollachi, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.126/70 per cent and passed the award No.1/92-93 dated 7. 1992 as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred his objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as C.W.1 and on his side Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 were marked. On the side of the Referring Officer neither documentary nor oral evidence was let in. Without considering the documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has raised the compensation from Rs.126/70 fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to a fanciful amount of Rs.2,500/- per cent, which necessitated the Government to approach this Court challenging the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.144 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet.

5. A perusal of Ex.C.1 – sale deed dated 111. 1989, which is admittedly three months before 4(1) notification will go to show that about 19 cents of land was sold at Rs.9,000/-which works out to Rs.473/- per cent. Under Ex.C.3 even though on the top of the document the sale consideration is stated to be Rs.1,50,000/-, the market rate for the land is shown as Rs.16,320/-. Under Ex.C.3 68 cents of land in various survey numbers in Sulakkal village, Pollachi Taluk was sold for Rs.15,000/- only. But the learned Tribunal has observed that even in Sulakkal Village several lands have been sold at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent. On the basis of Ex.C.3 the Land Acquisition Tribunal would have enhanced and fixed the compensation on the basis of the sale effected under Ex.C.1. But without any basis the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced and fixed the compensation as Rs.2,500/-. In none of the documents produced by the claimant viz., Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 one cent of land was sold for Rs.2,500/-. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.

6. In fine, the appeal is allowed and judgment and decree in LAOP.No.144 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the subordinate Judge, Udumalaipet, for denova trial, giving opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, and then to fix the compensation in accordance with law for the land acquired under the Award No.1/92-93 dated 7. 1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Wilfare, Pollachi. The learned Special Government Pleader at this juncture would represent that out of the award amount the claimant was permitted to withdraw 25% of the award amount deposited without furnishing security and the another 25% with security, though entire award amount was deposited, and that the balance 50% of the award amount was ordered to deposited in a Nationalised bank for period of two years. The claimant has withdraw 25% amount already furnishing security. Under such circumstance, the claim