C O M M O N O R D E R

These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred to set aside the judgment and decree passed in LAOP Nos.4,5,6,7 of 2016, LAOP No.1,2,3 of 2015, LAOP No.5 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017 and LAOP No.3 of 2016 dated

28.04.2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the first respondent in all Civil Revision Petitions and also perused the materials placed on record.

3. The short facts of the case in all Civil Revision Petitions are as follows:

The revision petitioners are the Referring Officers. The reference was made by the first revision petitioner who is the District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kancheepuram for enhancement of compensation in connection with the land acquisition proceedings. An award was passed in Award No.6 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010, for acquiring the lands belonging to the first respondent and others for the purpose of formation of Railway over bridge. The lands of the respondent claimants are situated in S.Nos.553/7B, 553/9F2, 553/22, 133/1A1B, 552/23, 205B/3B2, 205B/3A1, 205B/4C, 553/9F3, 553/9C2 in Chengalpattu town.

3.1. The compensation was given by fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1351/- per Sq.ft. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded, the respondent claimants raised objections. Hence, reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the market value of the lands by enhancing it to Rs.5500/- per Sq.ft. and enhanced the award on that basis. Aggrieved over that, the petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has relied on Ex.C1 sale deed as a sample sale deed for fixing the land value at Rs.5500/- per Sq.ft; the subject matter of the said sale deed is a smaller extent of land comprising 440 Sq.ft only; since the acquisition was made for a larger extent of lands, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is very excessive; while the Land Acquisition Officer has relied on the sale deed related to the land abutting to the acquired lands, the Court has relied on the land which is far away from the acquired lands for fixing the market value; the extent of land involved in the sample sale deed relied by the Court is just 440 Sq.ft; the extent of land involved in the data sale deed relied by the Referring Officer is 2000 Sq.ft; while fixing the market value, the Court omitted to deduct development charges; whenever smaller extent of lands are acquired for larger purpose, the Court should deduct development charges. In support of his above submissions, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Another, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207.

5. Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the respondent claimants submitted that the lands acquired from the land owners are already developed approved house sites and hence there is no need to deduct any development charges; the sample sale deed relied by the Court is situated in the very same stretch of lands acquired for the similar purpose; the location advantages and other other features surrounding the lands were taken into consideration while enhancing the compensation; since the lands have already got amenities, the deduction of development charges will not arise.

6. The subject matter of the data sale deed relied by the Referring Officer and the sale deed relied by the Court are situated in a distance of 1.6 Kms. The entire stretch of the lands in that area is acquired for the same purpose. The type of the lands also appears to be similar. It is seen that the boundaries of the subject matter of the land in Ex.C1 are all approved house sites. The learned