The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Reference Court should adhere to the directions of the Division Bench and fix the compensation based on the guideline value as on the specified date. Additionally, no developmental charges should be deducted for land acquired for laying a road.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in L.A.O.P.No.38 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.)

R. Subramanian, J.

1. The State, aggrieved by the awards made in references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is on appeal.

2. The lands in question were acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road (ORR). A notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 30.03.2007. An award came to be passed granting a sum of Rs.32/- per sq.ft. on 21.05.2010 in Award No.8/2010. The said award was challenged in W.P.Nos.10987 of 2015 etc. (batch), which came to be dismissed on 24.11.2015. The said dismissal was challenged in various writ appeals in W.A.Nos.36 to 42 and 249 of 2016. The said writ appeals came to be disposed of on 27.04.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court and finally, on 12.06.2017, a Division Bench of this Court gave the following directions in respect of the fixation of compensation:-

“11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and taking a humanitarian approach, keeping in mind the predicament to which the appellants have been put in their advanced age, while this Court is not inclined to touch upon the merits of the issue, the matter being resintegra, however, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under the writ jurisdiction, is inclined to issue the following directions:-

i) The appellants are hereby permitted to withdraw the amounts that have been deposited to their credit insofar as acquisition relating to their lands is concerned in the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer, without prejudice to their rights to file appeal before the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law.

ii) The appellants are further granted liberty to file appeal before the Reference Court within thirty days from today claiming enhancement of compensation, if so advised. On such appeals being filed, any delay in filing the said appeals shall not be put against the appellants by the Reference Court, since the matter was subjudice before the higher forum.

iii) While considering the appeals for enhancement of compensation, the Reference Court is directed to take the guideline value as on 1 s t January, 2014 , for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land and for arriving at a just and fair compensation.(emphasis supplied)

iv) On filing of appeals for enhancement of compensation, the Reference Court shall deal with the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

v) As a last chance, the appellants are granted time till 31st July, 2017 to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the respondents, who shall take physical possession of the lands in accordance with law.”

3. Thereafter, the references in question were made and they were numbered as L.A.O.P.Nos.30 to 38 of 2018. The Reference Court concluded that the land owners would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,842/- per sq.ft. In arriving at the said compensation, the Reference Court relined upon a sale deed dated 09.12.2013, which was marked as Ex.C1, and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.2,300/- per sq.ft. and upon deduction of 20% towards developmental charges, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.1,842/- per sq.ft. It is this fixation which is questioned by the appellants in these appeals.

4. Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, would vehemently contend that the 4(1) notification is of the year 2007 and therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in taking the value of a document which was executed in the year 2013. He would further argue that even assuming that the directions of the Division Bench are binding, then it should be the guideline v