ORDER
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.
1. The appeal is against the Judgment and decree dated 24.11.1987 in L.A.O.P. No. 95 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The matter relates to the compensation for the acquisition of dry lands measuring an extent of HO.A. 800.00 situate in Mamathambi Maricar Street, Karaikal town. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation for the land at Rs. 2,41,799. This includes the value of trees, superstructures including huts and a solatium of 15%. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the claims of 33 persons, the owners of the land and also the owners of the huts numbering 4. He has fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 2.41 per feet. All the 37 persons including the four hut owners objected to the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal, dated 15.4.1982 in his proceedings No. 2835/78/A8. The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry before whom the matter was referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer, since the land owners and hut owners demanded higher compensation, fixed a higher rate of Rs. 8 per square feet in L.A.O.P. No. 95 of 1984. Aggrieved by the higher rate fixed by the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, the Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry has preferred this appeal A.S. No. 963 of 1988 in this Court.
2. The main ground of attack is that the market value at the rate of Rs. 8 has been fixed, without there being any document. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account certain sale deed relating to the sale of nearby lands and has rightly fixed the compensation at Rs. 2.41 per square feet, and in the absence of any further records placed before the lower court, there was no justification for the enhancement of compensation. The sale deeds, Ex.P.3 to P.6 are relied upon for his contention. The tope sketch, Ex.P.7 is also relied upon. From a persual of the tope sketch, we find that the lands covered by Exs. P.3 to P.6 are far away from the land acquired. Therefore, these documents are not helpful to the appellants.
3. The counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the lower court has taken into account the guideline value and fixed the compensation at Rs. 8 per square feet. But it is very surprising that even though the trial Court has taken into account the guideline value, not even a certified copy of the said document has been marked in this Case. From the evidence of R.W.2 we find that he brought the guideline valuation register for Karaikal town of the year 1980. According to him the rate for a square feet in Mamathambi Maridar Street has been given at Rs. 8. He further says that the guideline register was prepared by the Revenue Department of Karaikal on the basis of transaction that took place in the year 1977-78 and 1979. But in the cross examination he has stated that the file relating to the preparation of the guideline was not with him and he gave the evidence only from his memory. Therefore, his evidence is not of much use in this case. That apart relying upon the guideline value is not a safe method, as has been laid down in the decision reported in Jawajee Nagnathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ahlabad, A.P. etc., 1994-2 L.W 14. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that inasmuch as the guideline value is not prepared as per any statutory directions, it cannot form the basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of this Court, reported in Director of Survey-Cum L.A.O. v. Mohamed Ghouse, 1965 (1) M.L.J 115, has not laid down the correct law. In this judgment instructions issued by the Government to determine the market value for the purpose of registration of the instrument under Section 47-A had been taken to be the basis. But the Supreme Court has not approved of it. Therefore, the guideline value is also not helpful and cannot be relied upon as the basis for fixing the compensation for the lands required under the Land Acquisition Act.
4. But in this case we have the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.3. According to them the market value should be fixed at Rs. 15 per square feet. R.W.1 is the owner of rice mill, R.W.I in his evidence has stated as follows:
“The property situate in the centre of the town and is a prominent locality. The bus stand of Karaikal is just 100 metres away from the property and the railway station at Karaikovilpathu is just 200 metres away from the property. The main market is about 200 metres distant and the mainshopping centre or Bazaar is about 300 metres from the property. A Petrol bunk is situate within 50 metres from the property and a school (Ka. Mannavan) is about 60 to 100 metres away. The main three temples of Karaikal and the main mosque of Karaikal are situate very near to this place.”
R.W.3 also has corroborated the evidence of R.W.I The evidence of R.W.3 is as follows:
“It is situate in a residential locality. It is near the junction of Mamathambi Maricar Street and Masthan Palli Street. The property on its east is a colony of residential, houses known as N.V. Colony, which are always in great demand, the site on the western side of the property is reserved for the construction of the main Post Office of the town. The historically famous and spiritually popular Hindu and Muslims Shrines are very near to the property acquired. The main bus stand, Market, Schools, Petrol bunk, Police Station, Banks, Commercial institutions, etc., are at very short distance from the property.”
5. A Bench decision of this Court reported in Ramuammal v. Special Tahsildar Harijan Welfare, Coimbatore, 97 L. W 128, states as follows:
“It is well settled that in deciding whether a land is or is not a potential building site, its situation, location, proximity to existing buildings and existence of road or roads would be determining factors. The evidence in this case discloses that the lands acquired adjoin roads already laid and used. Hence, we can take it that the lands acquired have all potentialities of being used as building sites and the very purpose of the acquisition is only that”
6. The statement of the above-said witnesses are not contradicted by any evidence. Nor have they been discredited by cross examination. The principle laid down in the above decision is very much applicable to mis case. Considering all the circumstances, we feel that Rs. 8 will be the proper rate for determining the compensation for the acquired land. Even though we have not agreed with the trial Court in relying upon the guideline register alone, we have found from all the relevant circumstances that the rate of Rs. 8 will be fair and proper. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are confirmed. The appeal fails, and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.