B. Rajendran, J.

Second Appeal Nos. 1003 and 1004 of 2008 arise out of the Judgment and Decree made in C.M.A. (L.A.) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 dated 08.03.2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

2. CRP Nos. 1766 and 1974 of 2008 arise out of the order dated 23.04.2008 made in REP No. 73 and 74 of 2005 in CMA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

3. Writ Petition Nos. 12424 and 14814 of 2008 have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Government on 03.04.2008 and 06.06.2008 withdrawing the very acquisition proceeding itself.

4. Since all the matters are inter-connected and relate to the very same acquisition proceedings, by consent of both sides, all the cases are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the material records placed. At the outset, the learned counsel for both sides fairly submitted that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petitions, the Government passed G.O. (3P) No.15 dated 01.09.2009 cancelling the earlier two Government Orders dated 03.04.2008 and 06.06.2008, which are challenged in the above writ petitions. Therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petitions have become infructuous and hence, the writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

6. As far as the Revision Petitions are concerned, the Reference Court passed orders in C.M.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, filed by the claimants, fixing the valuation of the land at Rs.47/- per sq.ft., in respect of the lands acquired at Sunnalampatty Village and Rs.13/-per sq.ft., in respect of the lands acquired at Thandiappanoor Village. Thereafter, the claimants have filed R.E.P. No.73 of 2005 in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2002 and R.E.P. No. 74 of 2005 in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2002 to execute the decrees. The Executing Court has also passed orders of attachment. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petitions have been filed by the Government.

7. At the time of admission of the Revision Petitions, this Court granted interim stay on 08.05.2008 and the same was in force till 25.06.2008 and thereafter, the interim stay was not extended. On 25.06.2008, both the Civil Revision Petitions were ordered to be posted along with the Second Apeals. According to the claimants, even before the granting of interim stay, orders for attachment was passed and effected. Therefore the issue involved in the Civil Revisions can be decided based on the outcome of the Second Appeal Nos. 1003 and 1004 of 2008.

8. The following common substantial questions of law arises for determination in the above second appeals.

i) Whether the reliance placed by the Court below on Ex.A1 is not in contravention of judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1995 (5) SCC 426 where the Apex Court has prescribed the guideline that small extent of land cannot be relied upon for determination of compensation for large extent of land.

ii) Whether the court below had erred in not making necessary deduction towards development charges especially in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2003 (12) SCC 334 where under the Apex Court prescribed the percentage of deduction at 53%?

iii) Whether the court below had erred in not appreciating the provision of Section 8 of the Act 31/78 which clearly stipulate the nature and classification of land under acquisition as on date of 4 (1) notification is the criteria for fixation of market value and not the probable usage of the said land?

iv) Whether the court below had failed to appreciate that the respondent/claimant ought to have paid advolerum court fee as prescribed under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and not a nominal fee under Section 3 (1) (B) of Schedule II of the said Act.

9. As far as S.A. No. 1003 of 2008 is concerned, the Government proposed to acquire the lands in Sunnalampatty Village, Uthankarai Taluk by invoking the provisions of Harijan Welfare Act, 1978 for the