JUDGMENT

This appeal has been against the judgment and decree dated

10.07.2008 passed in LACMA No. 27 of 1996 by the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

2. According to the appellant, his father Ramasamy owned 3 acres agriculture land in S.No. 216-1A, which was acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Land acquisition, for Harijan Welfare Schemes, to the effect notification was issued by the State, and under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu land Acquisition Act, notification was made by the respondent as per Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition notification was issued on 19.03.1996 at the time of the notification the father of the appellant herein Ramasamy alone was owned the land, and the enquiry was conducted on 23.03.1996 when the land owner was present. After concluding the enquiry the land acquisition officer fixed Rs.46,622/- as compensation per Acre and Rs.93,244/- was fixed for the total extent of two acres along with 15% solarium which comes around Rs.13,987/- , totally awarded Rs.1,07,231/- to the claimant. The land acquisition officer awarded the said compensation based on the data sale deed dated 20.10.1995. Challenging the said award, the claimant Ramasamy preferred an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal (hereinafter referred to as Reference Court) in LACMA No. 27 of 1996. During the pendency of the appeal the said Ramasamy died testate leaving his daughter Vijayalakshmi/appellant herein as legal heir. During the life time of the said Ramasamy, he executed a Will dated 07.11.1999 in favour of his Wife/Perumayee, thereafter the said Perumayee executed a Will dated 07.03.2000 in favour of the second claimant/appellant herein. Subsequently, said Perumayee died on 14.03.2000, hence as per the Will the present appellant is entitled to have right over the land which was acquired by the Land Acquisition officer. Considering that the Reference Court admitted the genuineness of the Will and concluded that the appellant is a only person, who have right over the acquired land. Before the Reference Court, the award passed by the land acquisition officer was challenged by the claimant, stating that at the time of the acquisition the land acquisition officer failed to consider the existence of rice mill, poultry farms and textile Mills which is nearby the acquired land as well as the future development in and around that area and also another objection raised by the claimant is that the sale deed relied by the land acquisition officer is based upon the sale agreement of the year 1997. Therefore, the value of the land mentioned in the data sale deed not of the year 1994. Therefore, the claimant claiming enhancement of the compensation by relying the sale deed dated 25.10.1995/Ex.A6 pertaining to the S.No.205 which is nearby the acquired land. Based on the said sale deed, the claimant demanded Rs.4,000/- per cent as compensation. But the reference court refused to accept the claimant's claim stating that data sale deed relied by the claimant is only for the extend of 3 cents which is lesser in value the same cannot be considered for the property acquired with larger extent. Admittedly, the land acquired by the Government is two acres but the sale deed relied by the claimants is only for three cents. Therefore, the reference Court not inclined to accept the sale deed relied by her. However., the reference Court taken into note of the fact that data sale deed relied by the claimant was pertaining to the year 1991 the same cannot be considered as market value of year 1995 which comes around Rs.81,542/- per acre. After deducting 15% the Reference Court awarded Rs.69,310/- per acre. Therefore, amount enhanced to Rs.69,310/- per acres. Accordingly, the Reference Court fixed Rs.1,38,620/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the claimant preferred this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court erred in fixing the compensation for the acquired land, based on the data sale deed of the State by giving 15% ap