JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant asserts that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2020 is in error, inasmuch as it has been declared therein that he is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act 2013’, for short).

2. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge, that his client is not entitled to the benefits of the afore ‘Act’, have been entered without proper thought and without appreciating the impact of Ext.P8 judgment earlier issued by this Court. He contended that the learned Single Judge could not have declared as afore because, Ext.P2 - which is the alleged consent issued by his client to surrender his land, subject to the payment of consideration to be fixed by the District Collector in terms of the order of the Government relating to the negotiated settlement of land - is not genuine or acceptable in law. He contended that, since Ext.P2 is a document which could not have been accepted by any judicial forum, much less this Court, the findings in the impugned ju