C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge in these appeals is to the awards of the Sub-Court, Ponneri made in several Land Acquisition Original Petitions relating to the acquisition of land for the purposes of laying Outer Ring road by the 2nd respondent namely, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. 2.In respect of the lands subject matter of these appeals, 4(1)

notifications were made on 12.04.2012 and 30.07.2012. Award Nos.1 to 7 were passed on 31.10.2013, 12.12.2013, 27.12.2013 and 30.12.2013. The Land Acquisition Officer, relied upon the sale deed, which was produced as Ex.R1 and fixed the value per cent at Rs.65,378/-, Rs.65,708/-and at Rs.66,956/- for the lands that were under aquisition. The Land Acquisition officer also awarded statutory benefits that were available to the land owners under Act 1 of 1894. Aggrieved, the land owners sought for the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The references were made to the Sub-Court, Ponneri.

3.Before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, the land owners produced Ex.C1, sale deed under which, an extent of 1150 Sq.ft., of land was sold at Rs.5,39,000/- on 29.03.2012, which is prior to the 4(1) notification. The acquiring Authority, relied upon the Ex.R1, sale deed dated 25.08.2011 wherein, the extent of 1,175 Sq.ft., land was sold for Rs.1,80,114/-. While Ex.R1 related to Survey No.145, Ex.C1 related to Survey No.441 of the same village.

4.The learned Sub-ordinate Judge, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saush & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2009 (9-10) SBR 307 wherein, it was held that when comparable exemplars are brought on record, one carrying highest market value amongst them should be taken into account by the Court to fix the compensation and concluded that Ex.C1, which reflects the highest value and which is more nearer to the date of the 4(1) notification should be accepted despite the fact that the lands covered by Ex.C1 were situate a little farther away. Taking the vaue reflected in Ex.C1 as the basis, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge deducted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and fixed the compensation payable at Rs.2,13,813/- per cent.

5.The learned Sub-ordinate Judge however, granted solatium at

100% and enhanced compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 and thus, awarded nearly a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- per cent including solatium. Aggrieved, the Acquiring Authority namely, the Special Tahsildhar is on appeal.

6.We have heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr.S.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the land owners.

7.Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that since the awards were passed prior to 01.01.2014 namely, the date on which, the new Act came into force under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings will have to be continued under the 1894 Act and there is no scope for the Court, awarding compensation as per the new Act. Drawing our attention to Section 24(1)A, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Trial Court erred in granting double the market value with 100% solatium as per the provisions of the

2013 Act.

8.Mr.R.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the land owners is unable to support the reasoning of the Trial Court in granting solatium and other benefits under the 2013 Act.

9.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the CMDA would submit that the land covered by Ex.R1 situate within 1.6 Kilometres from the acquired land. A perusal of Ex.R2/ Map produced by CMDA before the Trial Court shows that a portion of Survey No.441 , covered by Ex.C1 also falls within the 1.6 kilometres radius. More over, the land acquisition being one for road, the exact location from where 1.6 kilometres radiushas to be mea