IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN A.S.Nos.936 & 937 of 1997 S.P.Ramasamy .. Appellant in both the above Ass /Claimant Versus 1.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Namakkal Rural Scheme Namakkal. 2.The Executive Engineer-cum- Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Board, Salem-8. .. Respondents in both the above Ass /Respondent Prayer:-These appeals have been preferred under Section 96 of CPC r/w Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1996 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.8 & 81 of 1991 respectively on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. For Applicants : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar Ms.M.E.Rani Selvam, Advocates (in both the above ASs) For Respondents : Mr.K.Chelladurai, Advocate (for R2) Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.Govt.Pleader (for R1) (in both the above ASs) COMMON JUDGMENT A.S.No.936 of 1997 has been directed against the award passed in LAOP.No.8 of 1991 dated 30.09.1996 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. A.S.No.937 of 1991 has been directed against the award passed in LAOP.No.81 of 1991 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. Both the LAOPs are referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Under LAOP.No.8 of 1991 about 69,625.2 sq.ft land in S.No.34/2B part and 1,800 sq.ft land in S.No.34/2B part were acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing houses for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood scheme. After following the formalities like issuance of 4(1) notification, the Land Acquisition Officer / Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition, Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme) in his award No.3/87-88 dated 13.8.1987 had fixed the compensation for the land acquired in S.No.34/2B in Kondichettypatty Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, as Rs.0.70 per sq.ft apart from awarding 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation etc. In LAOP.No.81 of 1991 for the same purpose the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired the land in S.No.37/3 measuring 27007.2 sq.ft by awarding the same compensation of Rs.0.70 paise per sq.ft alongwith 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation etc. under the same award No.3/87-88 dated 13.8.1987. 3.Aggrieved by the said compensation of Rs.0.70 paise awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in award No.3/87-88 dated 13.08.1987, the claimant has preferred LAOP.No.8 of 1991 in respect of the lands acquired under S.No.34/2B part and LAOP.No.81 of 1991 in respect of the lands acquired under S.No.37/3. 4.The Tribunal has disposed of LAOP.Nos.8/91 alongwith LAOP.Nos.80/91, 6/91, 7/91, 10/91, 15/91, 49/91, 50/91, 51/91, 66/91, 67/91, 68/91, 69/91, 159/90, 74/91, 81/91, 82/91, 75/92, 10/93, 11/93, 42/92 and 70/93 on 13.09.1996 by way of a common award. Before the tribunal the claimants in LAOP.No.80/91 and LAOP.No.11/93 were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and one Ramaswamy was examined as P.W.3. The Head Surveyor of Tamil Nadu Housing Board was examined as R.W.1. On the side of the claimants Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. 5.After meticulous consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal had ultimately come to a conclusion that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is meagre, had enhanced the same to Rs.6 per sq.ft. alongwith 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award in each of the above said LAOPs. Not satisfied with the enhancement of the award of compensation passed by the tribunal, the claimant in LAOP.Nos.8 of 1991 has preferred A.S.No.936 of 1997 and the claimant in LAOP.No.81 of 1991 has preferred A.S.No.937 of 1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.When the appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel Ms.M.E.Rani Selvam appearing for the appellant in both the above appeals very fairly conceded that a Bench of this Court while disposing of A.S.No.632 of 1998, batch of appeals alongwith cross- objections, in similar matter, had reduced and fixed the compensation as Rs.4.66 paise per sq.ft with proportionate solatium. The learned counsel for the appellant would fairly admit that in the above said decision of the Bench of this Court also the land was acquired for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Neighbourhood Scheme at the same village viz., Kondichettypatty Village and 4(1) notification was also issued on various dates including 26.1.1983 wherein the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.3.90 paise per sq.ft, which was enhanced by the Tribunal and fixed as Rs.6 per sq.ft, and in the said batch of appeals the appellant was the State / Special Tahsildar, Namakkal Neighbourhood Scheme, Namakkal, who is the 1st respondent in these appeals. 7.Even though these appeals were preferred for enhancement of compensation from Rs.6 per sq.ft to Rs.12 per sq.ft, the learned counsel Ms.M.E.Rani Selivam appearing for the appellant would fairly state that against the judgment of the Bench of this Court in a similar matter, the appellant herein cannot ask for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.12 per sq.ft., but must content with Rs.4.66 paise per sq.ft alone as held in the above mentioned appeals by the Bench of this Court. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that this Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Bench of this Court dated 29.4.2003 in A.S.Nos.632/98, 633/98 and 135/99 etc., batch alongwith cross- objection Nos.41/2001 in A.S.No.635/98, 42/01 in A.S.No.636/98 etc. 8.In fine, the appeals are dismissed with the following modifications in the award passed in LAOP.No.8 & 81 of 1991 by the learned Land Acquisition Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. The award amount is reduced and refixed as Rs.4.66 paise per sq.ft instead of Rs.6 per sq.ft with proportionate solatium as well as additional amount in terms of Section 23(1-A) and 28 of the Act, and also the payment of interest on solatium as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India [2001 (7) SCC 211]. The fairness of the learned counsel Ms.M.E.Rani Selvam appearing for the appellant is recorded with appreciation. Ssv 13.6.2008 This Case having been posted on this date of 20th March 2009 under the caption 'for Being Mentioned' in the presence of the counsels mentioned above and upon perusing the order dated 13.6.2008 the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This matter is posted today under the caption “For Being mentioned”. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in both appeals. The doubt raised by the learned counsel is that the Tribunal has fixed the compensation for the entire land as Rs.6/- per square foot after deducting 1/3 towards improvement and hence, the Execution Court may also deduct 1/3 from Rs.4.66 ps per square foot as fixed by this Court towards compensation. The learned counsel cannot have such a doubt because the common judgment in A.S.Nos.936 & 937 of 1997 is crystal clear as to the effect that the compensation for the acquired land in LAOP.Nos.8 & 81 of 1991 was reduced and refixed as Rs.4.66 ps per square foot instead of Rs.6/- per square foot. So, there is no question of any further deduction from the above said compensation of Rs.4.66 ps per square foot. sg 20.3.2009 Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. + 1 cc to Mr. T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate SR No.29261, + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.29170 + 1 cc to Mr. K. Chelladurai, Advocate SR No.29442 MDR(CO) SR/9.2.2009 SR/20.3.2009 A.S.Nos.936 & 937 of 1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/