This is an appeal under Sec.54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), preferred by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Sipcot, Pudukkottai against the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.46 of 1983 dated 3rd May, 1984 on a reference made under Sec.18 of the Act.

2. An extent of 0-35-5 hectares i.e. 0.80 acres in S.F.No.55/2 in Thiruvengaivasal Village, Pudukkottai Town was acquired for the purposes of setting up of Sipcot Industrial Complex at Thiruvengaivasal Village.

3. There is no doubt that the Government had acquired the lands after observing the formalities by issuing a Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and subsequent notices as contemplated under the Act. It is also relevant to note that the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 17.10.1981. The Government has also acquired possession from the claimant on 4.12.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 31.7.1982 determining the compensation payable for the acquired land at Rs.2,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the award, the five claimants have sought a reference under Sec.18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. The reference was made to the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai and the learned Sub-Judge on a consideration of the oral evidence, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre.

4. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation, the State have preferred the present appeal. It is also relevant to mention here that the claimants have not preferred any independent appeal or filed any Memorandum of cross objection. It is stated in the appeal grounds that the Sub Court, Pudukkottai was not correct in enhancing the compensation without any basis and without any material and hence the enhancement is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

5. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant has fairly brought to the attention of this Court an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals in Appeal Nos.440, 453 to 456 of 1984 etc. dated 9.8.1989 wherein the Bench consisting of Mr. V. Ratnam and Mr. K.A. Thanikkachalam, JJ., (as their Lordships then were) considered the question regarding the market value of the lands which were acquired along with the claimants’ land under the same Notification dated 17.10.1981, and the Bench after a detailed analysis of the evidence and after considering the nature of the land, held that the owners of the land would be entitled to be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.6000/- per acre without making distinction between irrigated and unirrigated lands. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the unreported decision of this Court in Appeal Nos.440, 453 to 456 of 1984 dated 9.8.1989 would govern the facts of this case as well, and on the basis of the judgment of this Court no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai determining the compensation at Rs.4,000/- per acre.

6. Mrs. Pushpa Sathyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 submitted that on the basis of the decision of this Court in Appeal Nos.440, 453 to 456 of 1984 dated 9.8.1989, all the respondents would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per acre, though the respondents have not preferred the cross objection, and this Court can exercise the power conferred under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. and hold that the respondents are also entitled to have the same amount as the compensation payable was already determinated by this Court and modify the order passed by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahant Dhangir v. Madan Mohan (AIR 1988 SC 54); Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder (1999-I M.L.J.41 = 1999-1-L.W.23) and Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi (1999 (III) CTC 558 = 2000-1-L.W.8