The main legal point established is the need to consider the future probable beneficial use of the land, make necessary deductions towards development charges, and collect advolorem Court fee for appeals preferred under Section 9 of the Act 31/1978.

1. This second appeal is focussed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam in L.A.C.M.A.No.16 of 2001 modifying the award dated 23.3.2001 passed by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Sathiyamangalam in Award No.11/2000-2001.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

The Government vide Notification dated 3.11.2000 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land belonging to the respondent/claimant/land owner, measuring an extent of 0.40.5 hecters in Survey No.391/1, Nallur Village, for the purpose of providing house plots to the landless Harijan people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer in the process of acquiring the land passed the award dated 23.3.2001 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.60,215/- per acre and accordingly assessed the rate for the land concerned in a sum of Rs.69,247/-.

5. Being aggrieved by such quantification of the compensation, the land owner preferred the appeal before the Sub Court, seeking enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.9,86,885/-.

6. During enquiry, before the Sub Court the power agent of the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one Arumugam was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 were marked.

7. Ultimately the Sub Court, after conducting enquiry, enhanced the compensation and awarded at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, in addition to the other statutory entitlements to which the claimant/land owner is eligible. In fact, the advaloram Court fee also was not collected by the appellate Court, despite this Court issued direction in that regard.

8. Now this second appeal is by the Government as against the enhancement of compensation awarded by the appellate authority and also as against the non-collection of advalorem Court fee by the appellate authority concerned, on various grounds, inter alia thus:

(i) The lower appellate Court, without any rhyme or reason simply enhanced the compensation multiple times and arrived at the figure as Rs.5,00,000/- per acre.

(ii)The alleged exemplar document-ExC2 dated 6.12.1999 was relating to a small extent and it cannot be taken as the guideline for enhancing the compensation.

9. Accordingly, the following substantial questions of law are found suggested in the memorandum of grounds of appeal:

"a) Whether the Court below had erred in placing reliance on Ex.A1 and A2 where under a small extent of land classified as house site were conveyed where as the land acquired is classified as agricultural land and measuring an extent of 0.40.5 hectars?

b) Whether the reliance placed by the Court below on Ex.A1 and A2 is not in contravention of the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1995(5) SCC 426 whereunder the Apex Court has prescribed the guideline that small extent of land cannot be relied upon, for determination of compensation for large extent of land?

c) Whether the Court below had erred in not making necessary deduction towards development charges especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court judgement reported in 2003(12) SCC 334 where under the Apex Court prescribed the percentage of deduction at 53%?

d) Whether the Court below had erred in not appreciating the provision of Section 8 of the Act 31/78 which clearly stipulate that nature and classification of land under acquisition as on date of 4(1) Notification is the criteria for fixation of market value and not the probable usage of the said land?

e) Whether the court below had failed to appreciate that the respondent/claimant ought to have paid advolerum court fee as prescribed under Section