Judgment :- Aggrieved against the order of the second respondent dated 5-2-1997, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash the said order and also for further direction directing the second respondent to fix and pay the market value of the petitioner's land situated in S. No. 182/2 and 182/3 to an extent of 1.31 hectares (3.24 acres) excluding road area in Thukkanankarai Village, Rathanur groups, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, as per the G.O.Ms. No. 885 dated 21-9-1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. The petitioner is an agriculturist. He is residing at Anandur Village, Tiruvadanai taluk and having small extent of land. He is personally cultivating the said land -- His entire family is depending upon the income derived from the said lands. The petitioner is the absolute owner and having possession and enjoyment of the nanja lands to an extent of 1.31 hectares (3.24 acres) excluding the road area comprised in S. No. 182/2 and 182/3 in Thukkanankarai Village. The third respondent has approached the petitioner under direct negotiation for the purchase of the petitioner's land for erection of electrical sub-station, which the land in suitable for the same. They also undertake to pay the market value of the land to the petitioner as early as possible. The petitioner further submits that on the fond hope that the third respondent will pay the market value of the said lands, he had given possession of the lands for erection of electrical sub-station. 3. According to him, his land would easily fetch more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs per acres and the value has been arrived on the basis of the market value of the lands just situated near the petitioner's land in S. No. 183/95 in the same village. The Tahsildar of Thiruvadanai taluk erroneously fixed the value which is not based on any data. The respondents eventhough had taken possession of the petitioner's land they had not paid the compensation till date. In those circumstances, he has approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 13427 of 1996 for necessary direction. By order dated 13-11-1996 this Court has directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. By order dated 13-11-1996 this Court has directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The second respondent in spite of the order by this Court on earlier occasion without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without following the G.O. Ms. No. 885 dated 21-9-1995 erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim, hence he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 4. The third respondent alone has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is admitted that petitioner has given consent letter to the Superintending Engineer, Ramanad Electricity Distribution Circle to establish the sub-station before the registration of the document and also the petitioner has given his consent letter and agreed to execute document to sell the said lands to the Tamilnadu Electricity Board at the rate fixed by the Government. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board has already requested the Revenue Department vide Assistant Executive Engineer's letter dated 20-12-1995 for the said land. The District Collector of Ramanathapuram fixed the land value at Rs. 20,400/- per acre in his letter dated 27-6-1996. However, as per the direction of the Joint Commissioner, Land Administration, Chennai the proposal was again sent to Collector by Superintending Engineer, Ramnad in his letter dated 18-4-1997 and the refixation order is still awaited from the Collector, Ramanathapuram. 5. It is also contended that the Electricity Board is ready to pay the compensation but the compensation has to be fixed by the competent authority viz., the District Collector. However, the petitioner is not agreeable to the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector, the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order of the District Collector the Second respondent and the same is pending. 6. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has filed any counter-affidavit. 7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N. R. Chandran learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Balasubramaniam learned Additional Govern-ment Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Muthusamy for third respondent. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Government order Ms. 7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. N. R. Chandran learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Balasubramaniam learned Additional Govern-ment Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N. Muthusamy for third respondent. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Government order Ms. No. 885, Revenue Department, dated 21-9-1995 the respondent ought to have fixed reasonable compensation as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13427 of 1996, dated 13-11-1996. He further submitted that having given the land (3.24 acres) as requested by the third respondent, the respondents are accepted to fix reasonable compensation without any delay. 9. On the other hand learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in the absence of any prior approval either from the District Collector or from the Commissioner, Land Administration, the petitioner has to approach only the third respondent for payment of compensation if any. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has admitted that only on the request of the third respondent, petitioner has given consent and the third respondent has taken possession of the petitioner's land as claimed by him. As a matter of fact he has no objection for payment of reasonable compensation. But according to him the compensation has to be fixed by the competent authority viz., the District Collector. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner has parted with the land to an extent of 1.31. hectares (3.24 acres) as requested by the third respondent for erection of electrical sub station. At this stage it is useful to refer the Government Order Ms. No. 885, Revenue Department, dated 21-9-1995. In order to avoid the delay in acquisition proceedings on the basis of the suggestion by the Commissioner, Land Administration, Govern-ment passed the above order and accepted the suggestion of the Commissioner, Land Administration. By the said Government order, Government have constituted two committees, one at the District level and another at State level. The very same Government order fixed the monetary power of the District level committee and State level committee. 12. It is further seen that after parting with the land as requested by the third respondent, the District Collector according to the petitioner has fixed the nominal amount as compensation. In these circumstances, the petitioner has preferrred an appeal before the second respondent. 12. It is further seen that after parting with the land as requested by the third respondent, the District Collector according to the petitioner has fixed the nominal amount as compensation. In these circumstances, the petitioner has preferrred an appeal before the second respondent. Since the second respondent has not passed orders on the appeal/representation, the petitioner constrained to approach this Court on earlier occasion. By order dated 13-11-1996, S. M. Ali Mohamed, J., in Writ Petition No. 13427 of 1996 passed the following order. The relevant portion in the said order is hereby extracted : "The prayer of the petitioner is to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 8-7-1996 before the Second respondent, in accordance with G.O. Ms. 885 dated 21-9-1995. As the prayer of the petitioner is only . . . . . . . . . . . to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent. I feel that ends of justice will be served by directing the second respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs." * 13. The reading of the order of this Court referred above clearly shows that the learned Judge has directed the second respondent herein to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months. It is seen by the impugned order dated 5-2-1997, the second respondent has rejected the appeal. The operative portion of the impugned order is hereby extracted, (vernacular matter omitted) 14. In the light of the submission made by the learned senior counsel and after perusing the earlier order of this Court dated 13-11-1996 as well as the Government Order Ms. No. 885, Revenue Department, dated 21-9-1995, I am of the view that the second respondent has committed an error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner with regard to fixation of proper compensation. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner without any protest or objection, on the basis of the request made by the third respondent handed over possession as requested. 15. In this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner without any protest or objection, on the basis of the request made by the third respondent handed over possession as requested. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has also brought to my notice, a written agreement executed by the third respondent on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the petitioner herein. Only to avoid loss of time by way of litigation the Government after careful consideration passed the Government Order Ms. No. 885, Revenue Department, dated 21-9-95. When a higher authority like the second respondent refuses to ascertain the market value for a person who had parted his land without any objection on the basis of the Government order referred above, I do not know how the subordinate officers will act on the basis of the Government order. As a matter of fact, the Government have passed the above order in the interest of the Government, Government undertaking as well as for benefit of the land owners. 16. When a land owner without any objections willing to part with his land on the hope that he will be paid proper, reasonable compensation, authority like the second respondent has to utilise the opportunity and determine proper compensation as per the Government order referred above. Apart from all these things, there is also a direction by this Court dated 13-11-1996. It is surprise that the second respondent in spite of positive direction by this Court on earlier occasion has rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed him to approach the third respondent to get his compensation. Eventhough the learned Judge on earlier occasion has directed the second respondent to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner on merits. It is needless to mention that the second respondent ought to have passed an order on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 885, Revenue Department, dated 21-9-1995. 17. Looking at any angle, I am unable to accept the reason given by the second respondent in the impugned order. 18. Net result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for, I make it clear that the impugned order of the second respondent dated 5-2-1997 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to fix the market value of the petitioner's land as per G.O. Ms. 18. Net result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for, I make it clear that the impugned order of the second respondent dated 5-2-1997 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to fix the market value of the petitioner's land as per G.O. Ms. No. 885 Revenue Department, dated 21-9-1995 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is also directed that before determining the compensation, issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the requisitoning body at whose instance the lands were taken possession from the petitioner. 19. I also make it clear that I have not expressed anything regarding the quantum of compensation to be fixed by the second respondent. He is absolutely free to fix a reasonable compensation as per the Government order referred above, in accordance with law. Petition allowed.