JUDGMENT :

S. ANANTHI, J.

This appeal by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Divisional Engineer [Highways], Project Division, Madurai, is directed against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.11.2017 in L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai. The respondent is a Trust called Valaiveesi Theppakulam Trust represented by its three trustees who were the erstwhile landowners.

2. The facts which have led to the impugned order are brought out as hereunder:

2.1. The Highways Department during 2004 sent a requisition to the State Government for acquisition of vast extent of lands in T.S.No.16/2, etc. in West Madurai, Madurai South Taluk for the construction of road over bridge at KM 2/10 of National Highways 49, Extension near Periyar Bus Stand-Ellis Nagar, Madurai City under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'TN Act 34 of 2002']. The Government granted administrative sanction for the project during 2006 and proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the provisions of TN Act 34 of 2002. The other details may not be of much relevance to decide the issues in the present appeal and we may straight away go to consider the facts relating to the lands owned by the respondent Trust.

2.2. The lands stood in the name of the Trust represented by its three trustees, comprised in T.S.No.35/2 [Old T.S.No.6/1] measuring an extent of 0.0813.0 sq.m. The land owners appeared for the award enquiry and filed their objections in writing, in which they stated that an extent of 4780 sq.ft. of land was sold by the Trust to one Tmt. P.Meera by sale deed dated 15.07.1996 in Document No.1812/1996. But, however the said purchaser did not appear for the award enquiry and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer could not decide upon the apportionment of compensation. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer observed that the respondent being a Trust, it has to obtain permission for sale of the Trust property and for purchase of properties and the amount of compensation would also fall within the scope of such transactions and therefore, the compensation amount payable to the acquired portion of land has to be kept in Court deposit and accordingly, directed the compensation amount to be deposited into the Civil Court. The land Acquisition Officer with regard to the valuation took note of the sale statistics for a period of three years from 27.06.2003 to 26.06.2006 and placed reliance on data sale deed No.25, wherein an extent of 1,400/- sq.ft. with the superstructure in T.S.No.1562/2 was sold for Rs.7,00,000/- by sale deed dated 28.08.2005, registered as Document No.2351/2005 and after deducting the value of the superstructure worked out the value per square feet at Rs.409.46. Thus, taking into consideration the said sale, the market value of the lands which were subject matter of acquisition was determined at Rs.409.46 per sq.ft. [Rs.4,407 per square meter].

2.3. The respondent being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer filed an application for enhancement of compensation which was referred to the VI Additional District Court, Madurai and the reference was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.5 of 2012. Before the District Court, the respondents had stated about their land holding and as to how the Tahsildar erroneously classified a portion of the land as Government poromboke and the respondent Trust had to challenge the same by initiating legal proceedings and ultimately, the matter attained finality pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and necessary rectification/correction has been done in the revenue records and that the respondent Trust is the rightful owner of the land. As rightly observed by the District Court, we are not required to go into the issues pertaining to he patta which was granted in favour of the respondent Trust and that a portion of the land was classified as Government poromboke and subsequently pursuant to intervention