IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 04.02.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA A.S.Nos.6, 36 and 38 of 1999 1.The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Govt.(Rev.) Pondicherry. 2.The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Deputy Collector, (Rev) Karaikal. ... Appellants in all the appeals/ Respondents in all the cases Vs. M.Ameersulthan ... Respondent in A.S.No.6/99 /Petitioner A.Ramalingam ... Respondent in A.S.No.36/99/Petitioner S.Vaithinathasamy ... Respondent in A.S.No.38/99/Petitioner Appeals against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in LAOP Nos.9 of 1996, 8 of 1996 and 10 of 1996 respectively dated 14.09.1998. For appellants :: Mr.T.Murugesan Government Pleader, Pondicherry COMMON JUDGMENT These appeal are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.1998 of the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal in LAOP Nos.9 of 1996, 8 of 1996 and 10 of 1996 respectively. 2. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) presented the letter dated 03.02.2009 addressed to Thiru T.Murugesan, Senior Government Pleader-cum-Senior Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai by the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry, informing the following facts. " I am to inform you that this office has filed three Appeal Suits No.6, 36 and 38 of 1999 on the file of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Chennai for setting aside the Judgment to the Reference Court at Karaikal in LAOP Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 1996. Now, the Honourable Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court, Chennai and restored the award passed by the Reference Court. Hence, the Appeal Suits become a covered matter by virtue of Supreme Court's order in the case of M/s.Bhavani vs Unit Territory of Puducherry. Therefore, in the light of the same our three Appeals preferred above would not survive and they may kindly be withdrawn." 3. Placing reliance on the said letter, the learned Government Pleader (P) would pray for the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn and for refund of half of the Court fees as per Section 52 of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. 4. Perused the records. I am satisfied that Pondicherry Government is no more interested in prosecuting these appeals as the present appeals are covered by the Supreme Court's earlier order in similar matter reported in JT 2005(9) SC 324 [Pattammal and others v. Union of India and another]. Hence, in these circumstances, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and half of the Court fees is directed to be refunded to the appellants as per law. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To The Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal Copy to The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 3 ccs To Senior Government Pleader, 4958, 4959, 4960 A.S.Nos.6, 36 and 38 of 1999 RSM(CO) SRA(05/03/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/