Compensation agreed upon under Section 7(2) of the Act excludes the operation of other provisions, including the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

R. Subbiah, J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 13.02.2018 passed in W.P.No.16136 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners to consider the representations dated 21.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 claiming the solatium and the additional amount in terms of Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 and also to follow G.O.No.45, dated 14.05.2014 and declare that all the Awards are interim compensation subject to payment of additional compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) if not, all the Awards passed under the repealed Act 1894 will become void.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The appellants herein who are the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge are the owners of the lands in Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The particulars of the lands are as follows:

(i) Survey No.78/3A1, 78/3A2, 24576 (Award No.20/2016);

(ii) S.No.73/2A,1A, PT, 73/6A, 1PT (Award No.21 of 2016) (111374 Sq.Ft);

(iii) S.No.73/A1APL, (19247 Sq.Ft) Award No.22/2016, Block (5) Unit-I;

(iv) S.No.33/2Pr, 34/22Pr and 34/54Pr (120575 Sq.Ft.) Award No.22/16, Block I, Unit-I;

(v) S.No.33/2 and 34/54 (58282 Sq.Ft.), Award No.23/16- Block I, Unit-I;

(vi) S.No.40/16 to 40/30(71478 Sq.Ft), Award No.11/16, Block 1, Unit-II.

The above lands were plotted out and an approved lay-out was formed and several of the plots were not sold, as there were no takers due to the likelihood of acquisition by the Government.

(b) While so, the aforesaid lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for SIPCOT Irunkattukottai expansion scheme, vide Government Gazette, dated 10.03.2008. Subsequently, SIPCOT sold about 385 acres including the writ petitioners' lands specified above to M/s. Ashok Leyland for the purpose of establishing industry under the Special Economic Zone Scheme. While awarding compensation for the lands and the earmarked portions for public purposes, viz., road, park, OSR etc., which were converted as industrial lands through 10.03.2008 Gazette Notification, were not taken into consideration, as the same were deemed to have been gifted to local authorities and the compensation would not be paid to the land owners, but only to the local bodies.

(c) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the appellants/writ petitioners filed Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.24460 and 24461 of 2011 before this Court. Both the Writ Petitions were allowed by order dated 16.02.2012 and the respondents were directed to award compensation for the said lands also, which were not OSR lands after 10.03.2008 Notification, but industrial lands for which Patta and Revenue Records are registered in the name of the appellants/writ petitioners and also notified in the Gazette. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents preferred Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.1557 and 1558 of 2012 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeals on 31.03.2015 holding that the writ petitioners are entitled to compensation, pursuant to which, the respondents ordered interim compensation, vide Awards dated 22.02.2016 (20/16), dated 11.05.2016 (21/16), dated 19.09.2016 (22/16) (two Awards, one in Block-I and the other in Block-V), dated 19.09.2016 (23/16), dated 19.09.2016 (11/16-Unit II), dated 19.09.2016.

(d) The appellants/writ petitioners received the compensation Awards bearing No.(1) 20/2016, dated 22.02.2016, (2) 21/16, dated 11.05.2016, (3) 22/2016, Block V, Unit I, dated 19.09.2016, (4) Award No.22/16, Block I, Unit I dated 19.09.2016, (5) 23/16, dated 19.11.2016, (6) 11/16, Unit II dated 19/2016 under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997, under protest, as the quantum was not fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the appellants/wr