ORDER :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 11.12.2009 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the appeals filed by Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode were allowed and the compensation determined by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Erode (hereinafter described as the `Reference Court') was reduced from 20/- to 8/- per square feet.

3. By notification dated 22.05.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 32.10.5 hectares land situated in village Erode for a public purpose, namely, construction of flats and houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, `the Board') under the Neighbourhood Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per acre.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants and other landowners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the Court for determination of the amount of compensation. In the claim petitions filed by them, the appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square feet. This was contested by the Board and the Special Tahsildar (LA), Neighbourhood Scheme, who pleaded that the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct.

5. The Reference Court considered the evidence including the sale transactions produced by the appellants and held that the market value of the acquired land should be treated as Rs. 30/- per square feet. The Reference Court deducted 1/3rd towards development cost and declared that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet with all statutory benefits.

6. The official respondents carried the matter to the High Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the statement made by the counsel for the Board and the Special Tahsildar that in S.No.392/07, the compensation had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square feet as also the statement made by the counsel for the landowners that the rate was acceptable to his clients and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 8/- per square feet.

7. Although, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellants, we do not consider it just and proper to non-suit them by dismissing the appeals because that would amount to rubbing salt in the wounds inflicted upon the appellants who were deprived of their land for providing houses to others.

8. A careful scrutiny of the record shows that the Reference Court had determined market value of the acquired land by carefully scrutinising the entire evidence including various sale instances. The price for which some parcels of land were sold was Rs 35/- per square feet and the Reference Court would have been fully justified in treating the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 35/- per square feet. However, it decided to rely upon other sale transactions, applied the rule of 1/3rd deduction and concluded that the landowners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 20/- per square feet.

9. In our considered view, the determination made by the Reference Court was based on proper analysis and evaluation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and the High Court was not, at all, justified in drastically reducing the amount of compensation.

10. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the one passed by the Reference Court is restored. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants after deducting the amount already paid within a period of three months. The compensation would include all statutory benefits including interest.

11. With a view to ensure that the poor landowners are not fleeced by