1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 14.07.2011 C o r a m THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY A.S (MD) Nos.55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2 and 2 of 2011 The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition), Sivakasi. .. Appellantin all Appeals/ Referring Officer Vs. Soundarajan .. Respondent in A.S.No.55/11/Claimant Rajalakshmi .. Respondent in A.S.No.56/11/Claimant Arumugam .. Respondent in A.S.No.57/11/Claimant Parthasarathy .. Respondent in A.S.No.58/11/Claimant S.Rangasamy .. Respondent in A.S.No.59/11/Claimant Raman Chettiar .. Respondent in A.S.No.60/11/Claimant Palanisamy Chettiar .. Respondent in A.S.No.61/11/Claimant Prayer in A.S.No.55 of 2011:- Appeal Suits have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgments and decrees dated 16.04.2010 made in L.A.O.P.Nos.12, 13, 15, 17, 8, 10, 11 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant : Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader (in all the appeals) For Respondent : Mr.D.Sakkaravarthy (in all the appeals) COMMON JUDGMENT A.S.No.55 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.12 of 2007, A.S.No.56 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.13 of 2007, A.S.No.57 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2007, A.S.No.58 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.17 of 2007, A.S.No.59 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2007, A.S.No.60 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 2007 and A.S.No.61 of 2011 arises against the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivakasi. 2. The reference Court by common judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.12 of 2007, 13 of 2007, 15 of 2007 and 17 of 2007 and also by another common judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.8 of 2007, 10 of 2007 and 11 of 2007, fixed compensation at Rs.1,932/- per cent for the land acquired. 3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are one and the same and also the lands were acquired under the same notification, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 common award was passed in Award No.1 of 1998, dated 12.01.1998. By consent of the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents all the main appeals are taken up for hearing and decided by this common judgment. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above appeals, challenging the award passed by the reference Court. The Land Acquisition Officer acquired the lands in Pethureddipatti Village of Sattur Taluk for the formation of new Tank near N.Subbaiahpuram Village under Special Minor Irrigation Programme under Award No.1 of 1998, dated 12.01.1998. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.59.40 per cent. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5. The reference Court after taking into consideration the available evidence on record enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,932/- per cent. Aggrieved over the award passed by the reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above appeals. 6. Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr.D.Sakaravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly fixed compensation at Rs.59.40 per cent; that the reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation of Rs.1,932/- per cent on the basis of Ex.C.4-Sale Deed; that, the quantum of compensation fixed by the reference Court is totally erroneous and it is liable to be modified. As per Ex.C.4-Sale Deed, dated 11.02.1993, a cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. In the case on hand, Section 4(1) notification was published on 12.01.1998. The reference Court has considered the classification of the lands in question as well as the nature of the land which has been dealt with under Ex.C.4 and ultimately deducted 33.3% towards developmental charges. It is not in dispute that the lands dealt in Ex.C.4 are nothing, but, nanja lands and are house-site. Therefore, the deduction of 33.3% towards developmental charges is perfectly correct. 8. The reference Court after taking into consideration the date of Sale Deed and the publication of Section 4(1) notification and also various aspects with regard to the lands acquired has rightly fixed the compensation at Rs.1,932/- per cent. 9. With regard to the lands acquired under the very same notification two other appeals, namely, A.S(MD) Nos.42 and 43 of 2011 were filed as against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Sivakasi passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.5 and 7 of 2007. This Court after hearing both sides confirmed the compensation fixed by the reference Court at Rs.1,932/- per cent. Further, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the judgment and decree passed in the said appeals have become final. 10. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Sivakasi made in L.A.O.P.Nos.8, 10, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 of 2007, the appeal suits are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal suits are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To THE SUB-JUDGE, AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER, OF (LACT), SIVAKASI. +2CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.23128, 23129 +4CC TO D.SAKKARAVARTHI, ADVOCATE SR.23115 Ps SR : 08.08.2011 : 3p/8c Judgment made in A.S (MD) Nos.55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of 2011 14.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/