Hon'ble SINGHVI, J.—Delay in filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 33777-33782/2009, 22831/2010, 23641/2010, 23643/2010 and 1961/2011 is condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3.These appeals filed against the judgments/orders passed by different Division Benches of the Madras High Court substantially reducing the amount of compensation determined by Additional District Judge, Erode and Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode (hereinafter referred to as, "the Reference Court") are illustrative of the plight of the owners of small parcels of land, who are deprived of the only source of livelihood and who have to spend substantial amount in litigation and wait for years together to get just and reasonable compensation in lieu of the compulsory acquisition of their land by the State.

4. For the sake of convenience, we shall first advert to the factual matrix of the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25581-82 of 2009 - Jaganatha Gounder vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Erode and another because learned counsel for the parties made submissions keeping in view the factual matrix of those cases.

5. In exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), the Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification dated 17.1.1997 for the acquisition of 55.89 acres land comprised in different survey numbers of village Erode for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, "the Board").

6. By an award dated 3.3.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. This did not satisfy the appellants who filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard by asserting that the acquired land is situated near Erode-Perundural and Sennimalal Road junction and residential colonies like Anna Nagar, Sri Nagar, Bharthi Nagar, Rail Nagar, Jeeva Nagar, Subramania Nagar, Kalaigner Karunanidhi Nagar, Arts College, Women's College, Kongu Higher Secondary School, St. Joseph Clinic, Hospitals etc. and was having potential for being used for housing and business purposes. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the Court for the determination of the compensation payable to the appellants. The Reference Court considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them and concluded that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 28/- per square feet.

7. Both, the appellants and the respondents challenged the judgment of the Reference Court by filing appeals under Section 54 of the Act. They also filed applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to adduce additional evidence. The High Court allowed the applications and directed the Reference Court to give opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence and make fresh determination of the compensation payable to the appellants and remit its findings along with the documents.

8. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, the Reference Court considered the additional evidence produced by the parties and opined that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10.28 per square feet.

9. After receiving the report of the Reference Court, the High Court considered the evidence produced by the parties and held that valuation of the land, which was made basis by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing market value cannot be relied upon because that land was situated far away from the acquired land. The High Court noted that there was a steady increase of property value in the area because of repeated acquisitions made on behalf of the Board, reference to the topo-sketch and sale deed Exhibit C.8 dated 8.2.1991 and observed:

"....The said property is in a housing colony by name K.K. Nagar and the area is considered to be a developed area. Therefore we are of the opinion that the valuation as found mentioned in Ex. C. 8 could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document