The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining market value and deductions for development charges under the Land Acquisition Act.

R. Banumathi, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.300/- per cent to Rs.3500/-per cent in respect of the lands acquired in Araneri village, Sriperumbudur Taluk for setting up an industrial complex by State Industries promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT], the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Unit-VII has filed these Appeals. Since, all the Appeals arise out of common Judgment, all the Appeals were taken up together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment.

.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeals are as follows:-The SIPCOT with an intent to fill up and boost the industrial activity in Tamil Nadu particularly near Chennai identified an extent of 9942. 5 Hectares of Patta and Poramboke lands in Mambakkam, Thirumangalam, Sirumangadu and Santhavelur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District to locate an industrial complex and solicited the Government to accord sanction for the establishment of the same. The Government considered the proposal of SIPCOT, with several multinational companies, Non-resident Indians and local entrepreneurs evincing keen interest in Tamil Nadu, especially near Chennai and accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.61, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 for the acquisition of Patta lands measuring 2310.73 acres covering nine villages, invoking urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the Government Orders, SIPCOT has furnished the required requisition to the District Collector, Kancheepuram District.

3. By the Proceedings in Rc.No.159/96 B3 dated 03.09.1997, the District Revenue Officer [LA], SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur issued orders allocating an extent of 2310.73 acres to be acquired. Accordingly, an extent of 615. 5 Hectares in Pondur "A" village; 494. 5 Hectares in Araneri village and 173. 0 Hectares in Thirumangalam village totalling 1283. 0 Hectares were allotted to proceed with the acquisition.

4. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram District to proceed with the acquisition invoking the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(1) notification was published on 13. 1998 and also duly published in the newspaper. As the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act invoking Sec.17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Sec.5-A was dispensed with and Sec.6 declaration was published on 05.06.1998.

5. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) i.e. 13.03.1998, LAO collected sales statistics for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. There are 542 sales during the said period. Out of the said sale deeds, sale in respect of the Dry land in S.No.61 measuring an extent of 084. 5 Hectares [Document No.4978 dated 01.09.1997] was taken as data sale deed and LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.300/- per cent with 30% solatium. LAO has also ordered 12% additional market value for 833 days from 13. 1998 to 26. 2000 and passed the Award.

6. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 of the Act was made. In the Reference Court, Claimant Paranthaman [Claimant in LAOP.No.33/2003] was examined as CW1. Exs.C1 to C18 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Referring Officer, one Varalakshmi, Special Tahsildar [LA] was examined as RW1. On the side of Beneficiary, one Sridharan, Manager [Legal], SIPCOT was examined as RW2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

7. Based upon Exs.C1 to C11-sale deeds, Reference Court held that market value of the acquired lands would fetch more value. Reference Court has not given any specific value, but on the basis of Exs.C1 to C11 and Exs.C13 and C14, took the view that the lands would fetch more value. Reference Court further held that though 33 – 1/3% is the normal deduction, the same is not a r