Interest cannot be paid on the amount already deposited or paid.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. A.S. No.1085 of 1990 is an appeal preferred by the claimant and A.S.No.481 of 1991 is filed by the Special Tahsildar, separately in reference to the same land.

2. An extent of 0.52 acres of lands in survey No.35/182 at Kadapei Village, Saidapet Taluk were acquired for the purpose of setting up Madras Export Processing Zone by SIPCOT under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published on 23.1.1985. Award No.4 of 1986 dated 28.11.1986 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing a compensation for the land at Rs.1 1,274.50 at the rate of Rs.145.85 per cent for an extent of 52 cents of land. The respondent sought for a reference, and on reference, the Reference Court, in L.A.O.P.No.492 of 1987, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,04,000 at the flat rate of Rs.2,000 per cent. Aggrieved by this determination, both the above appeals have been filed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the fixation of compensation is inadequate and the value of the land is more than Rs.2,000 per cent. According to him the Court ought to have awarded atleast Rs.3,600.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Special Tahsildar, in his appeal, submitted that the court below erred in enhancing the compensation by 14 times and without giving any specific reasons for arriving at Rs.2,000 per cent. The data sale taken by the reference court for comparison are small extent of lands and cannot be the basis for fixing the market value and awarding the compensation.

5. After hearing the counsel for both sides, we find that the learned Judge has relied on Ex.A.1, a sale deed dated 7.11.1984 in reference to a sale of five cents of land for Rs.2,000 which works out to Rs.400 per cent. Admittedly, this sale is in reference to a house plot of a small extent of land, whose value cannot be compared for acquisition of a large extent of land, in this case 0.54 acres. But, in the absence of any other documentary evidence filed and relied on by the parties, the materials available namely Ex.A.1 along with the evidence of P.W.1 can be taken into account. The appellants in A.S.No.1085 of 1990 have filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive additional document, which is a certified copy of the judgment in L.A.O.P.No.491 of 1987 dated 12.12.1988, wherein on the basis of the sale deed dated 7.11.1984 (Ex.A.1 in that judgment), the market value is fixed at Rs.3,600 per cent. In that case, the value determined by the parties works out to Rs.3,363 per cent, but the stamp paid on the guideline value is at Rs.4,545 per cent. However, the court adopted the value at Rs.6,000 per cent on the basis of potential value and reduced it by 40% for development charges. Ultimately fixing it at Rs.3,600 per cent. The determination on the basis of the guideline value cannot be sustained. The market value has to be determined on the basis of the value that a willing purchaser will be paying to a willing buyer, and the burden of proving the market value is always on the claimant. The Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Boopal, 1997 (9) SCC 628, held that it is settled legal position that the court has to put itself in the arm chair of a prudent purchaser and put the question to itself whether the amount in the given circumstances would fetch the same market value as is likely to be determined by the Court when a small piece of land would be offered for sale. In this case, it was pointed out and not disputed that the land sold under Ex.A.1 had no road facilities and it was in a remote portion of a land in the midst of wet cultivable lands. It was further alleged that the said sale deed was brought about with the sole aim of getting excessive compensation for the lands to be acquired under the cultivation proceedings. Besides, it is in reference to a very small exten