The court determined that compensation for land acquisition should be aligned with prior judicial findings, enhancing it based on comparable sales in the vicinity.

JUDGMENT :

N.Sathish Kumar, J.

1. All the appeals have been filed challenging the Awards passed by the Reference Court, whereby the compensation was enhanced from Rs.75/- per square feet into Rs.175/- per square feet. .

2. Since all the three appeals arise out of the awards passed in connection with the acquisition of properties for the purpose of construction of a Cricket Stadium at Kathirkamam, Outgaret Revenue Village, and since the witnesses examined and documents marked in all the three cases are one and the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the appeals by way of a common judgment.

3. The appellants, who are the land owners, have preferred these three appeals challenging the awards passed by the Reference Court in respect of the lands measuring a total extent of 14.96.50 hectares situated at Kathirkamam, Outgaret Revenue Village, Puducherry, acquired by the Government for the construction of Cricket Stadium and other infrastructure amenities.

4. Notification under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued on 27.05.2005 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 09.06.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 12.06.2007, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square feet.

5. Aggrieved by the said award, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act in L.A.O.P.Nos.62, 57, and 53, of 2008 before the Reference Court relating to

-A.S.No.17 of 2024 - Survey No.239/2011 - to an extent of 2142 sq.ft.

-A.S.No.18 of 2024 - Survey Nos.239/11 & 241/6 - to an extent of 1800 sq.ft.

-A,S,19 of 2024 - Survey No.239/2011 & 241/6 – to an extent of 1800 sq.ft

6. Before the Reference Court, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of the land owners and Exs.A1 to A6 marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B5 marked.

7. The Reference Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the compensation from Rs.75/- per sq.ft to Rs.175/- per sq.ft . Not satisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the present appeals have been filed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that in the respect of similar acquisitions made for the very same purpose in the lands situated in the adjacent survey numbers, a Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.249 and 250 of 2018 enhanced the compensation from Rs.175/- to Rs.500/- per square feet. Apart from this, 30% solatium, 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, together with interest at 15% for the first one year from the date of taking possession and 9% thereafter, till the date of payment, were granted.

9. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the judgment was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diary No.39073 of 2024 and that was also dismissed. Since the very same documents and evidence have been relied upon in the present case, the said judgment squarely applies to the present claimants/land owners also.

10. The learned Additional Government Pleader has not disputed the fact that the judgment of the Division Bench in Appeal Suit Nos.249 and 250 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

11. Though it is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that a review petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no details whatsoever have been placed before this Court.

12. Be that as it may, it is seen that Division Bench has elaborately considered Exs.A1 to A4, which were also marked in the reference proceedings in the L.A.O.Ps, the particulars of which are as follows:-