Judgment :- (Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated 21-6-2004 passed by Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 17256 of 2003 and to set aside the same; and Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against judgement and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 dated 15th September, 2003.) COMMON JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J Since the issue raised in the above appeals relates to the very same subject matter, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 2. Brief facts: - An extent of 0.21.0 Hectares (roughly 52 Cents) of dry land in Survey No. 217/2 at Thensingampunari village, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to provide house-sites to those who are belonging to Backward Classes. After enquiry, Award No. 4/2000-2001 dated 05-9-2000 was passed and compensation amount of Rs.2,89,133/- was paid to the land owners, namely, Lakshmanan, Vanni, Palanisamy, Sekku, son of Arumugham and Sekku, son of Vanni. 3. According to the writ appellants, they jointly filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Special Tahsildar (ADW) (Land Acquisition Officer), Devakottai. It is their case that the land originally belonged to Arulmigu Sevugaperumal Temple, and that the appellants and their fathers as well as grand-fathers are all “Meikavalars” of the said temple. The village was taken over by the Government under Act 26/1948. The said 52 Cents were allotted to Service Imam to their fathers and grand fathers. The Service Tenure Inam lands are recognized under Section 17 (1)(b) or 17 (2) of the Estate Abolition Act. According to them, the appellants and their fore-fathers are legally entitled to the acquired lands. It is also their case that after settlement of Patta, they constructed 39 houses in the acquired land i.e., in Survey No.217/2. After passing of the award on 05-9-2000, respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal, namely, B. Pankajam, B. Rajeswari, B. Govindaraj and S. Jayalakshmi made a representation to the Special Tahsildar, Devakottai on 11-10-2000 requesting that the award amount should not be disturbed to the appellants. After passing of the award on 05-9-2000, respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal, namely, B. Pankajam, B. Rajeswari, B. Govindaraj and S. Jayalakshmi made a representation to the Special Tahsildar, Devakottai on 11-10-2000 requesting that the award amount should not be disturbed to the appellants. Thereafter, they filed Writ Petition No. 20480/2000 before this Court for quashing of the award dated 05-9-2000 and also for direction to the respondents 3 to 7 therein to return the amount of Rs.2,89,139/- received by them from the respondents 1 and 2 therein together with interest at 18% per annum till the payment. However, the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 05-12-2000 with a direction to the Collector, Sivagangai District/first respondent therein to consider and dispose of their representation dated 10/11-10-2000 on merits. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent by order dated 29-3-2001, rejected their representation. The respondents 2 to 5 in Writ Appeal have filed another Writ Petition viz., W.P.No. 11313/2001 praying to quash the order dated 29-3-2001 of the Collector. By order dated 28-9-2001, a learned Single Judge found that the Collector could not decide the title of the parties and allowed the writ petition and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the same, the Special Tahsildar referred the matter on 10-04-2002 to the Sub Court, Sivaganga, which returned the reference stating that the award amount had been received by the land owners; hence there is no question of further adjudication. Thereafter, respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal filed Contempt Petition No. 37/2003 before this Court, and a learned Single Judge, after recording the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer had already referred the matter to the Sub Judge, Sivaganga on 10-4-2002, and obeyed the direction given by this Court, dismissed the Contempt Petition with a liberty to the parties to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum. 4. Respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal have also filed an impleading petition in I.A.No.100/2002 in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 before the Sub Court. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the said application. Then they filed a Revision Petition, namely, C.R.P.No.1636/2003 before this Court. 4. Respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal have also filed an impleading petition in I.A.No.100/2002 in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 before the Sub Court. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the said application. Then they filed a Revision Petition, namely, C.R.P.No.1636/2003 before this Court. As the Sub Judge disposed of the L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 in the meantime, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court on 22-12-2003 as infructuous. Thereafter, the respondents 2 to 5 filed Writ Petition No. 17256/2003 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 21-6-2004, directed the respondents therein to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order into Civil Court pursuant to the order dated 28-9-2001 passed in W.P.No.11313/2001. In the same order, the learned Judge also observed that on completion of the "suit", the Land Acquisition Officer need not disburse the amount to the parties concerned and after disposal of the reference, opportunity was given to the parties to approach this Court for necessary direction for the disposal of the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 2 to 6 therein filed Writ Appeal No.133/2005. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga dated 15-9-2003 made in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001, the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare/Land Acquisition Officer, Devakottai has filed Appeal in A.S.No.819/2004. The appellants in the Writ Appeal were arrayed as respondents 1 to 5 in the said First Appeal. Subsequently, as per order dated 8-9-2004 in C.M.P.No. 12203/2004, B. Pankajam, B. Rajeswari, S. Jayalakshmi and B. Govindaraj (respondents 2 to 6 in Writ Appeal) were impleaded as respondents 6 to 9. 6. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the claimants (writ appellants) filed Cross Objection in Cross Objection SR No. 34287/2005 against the dis-allowed claim relating to compensation for 39 houses said to have been constructed by them. Since the Cross objectors have not paid necessary court-fees, the same was not numbered by the Registry, therefore, we dispose of the same at the SR stage. 7. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents. 8. The following points arise for consideration: - (i) Whether the learned Single Judge is right in directing the Special Tahsildar/first respondent and other respondents to redeposit the award amount into the Sub Court? 7. Heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as respondents. 8. The following points arise for consideration: - (i) Whether the learned Single Judge is right in directing the Special Tahsildar/first respondent and other respondents to redeposit the award amount into the Sub Court? (ii) Whether respondents 2 to 5 in Writ Appeal No. 133/2005 are entitled compensation, for which any direction to the Sub Court is necessary? (iii) Whether the compensation fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and if not, what is the just and fair compensation for the acquired land? (iv) Whether the claimants/writ appellants are entitled compensation for the 39 houses said to have been constructed by them, as claimed in their Cross Objection? 9. It is not in dispute that an extent of 52 Cents (0.21.0 Hectares) in Survey No. 217/2 at Then Singampunari village, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District were acquired by the Government to provide house-sites to persons belonging to Backward Classes. It is also not in dispute that the land acquisition proceedings ended with passing of award in Award no.4/2000-2001 dated 5-9-2000. It is also not in dispute that the writ appellants, namely, S. Palanisamy and 4 others alone appeared for the award enquiry and raised their objection. It is also not in dispute that the respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal/writ petitioners in W.P.No.17256/2003 i.e., B. Pankajam and 3 others did not participate in the entire land acquisition proceedings, including the final stage, namely, award proceedings. At the instance of the writ appellants, the land acquisition officer referred the matter which resulted in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 on the file of Subordinate judge, Sivaganga, wherein the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.4835/- per Cent to Rs.14,505/- per Cent and also granted other statutory benefits. We will discuss the reasonableness or correctness of the said award in the later part of this order. 10. According to the writ appellants, they are the owners of the property in question and on that basis, the award has been passed. However, the writ petitioners made a request to the land acquisition officer seeking compensation in respect of the very same property on the ground that they are the owners of the land, which was negatived by the land acquisition officer. However, the writ petitioners made a request to the land acquisition officer seeking compensation in respect of the very same property on the ground that they are the owners of the land, which was negatived by the land acquisition officer. The said order was challenged by way of writ petition in W.P.No.11313/2001 and by order dated 28-9-2001, this Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the earlier order of this Court has not been complied with and the Civil Court failed to adjudicate the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, once again the writ petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P.No.17256/2003. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 21-06-2004, which is impugned in this writ appeal, after observing that on the basis of the earlier order, the Civil Court has to adjudicate the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and for that the statutory respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has to comply with the procedural formalities in accordance with law, directed the respondents to deposit the compensation amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In the same order, the learned Judge observed that till final decision being taken by the Sub Court, the compensation amount need not be disbursed to the parties concerned. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the writ appellants, vehemently contended that in the light of the earlier order passed in Contempt Petition No. 37/2003 in W.P.No. 11313/2001 and also of the fact that the writ petitioners did not participate in the land acquisition proceedings, including the award enquiry, the writ appellants being the real owners of the land, the remedy for the writ petitioners is to only file a civil suit to establish their right and title over the property in question. He also contended that inasmuch as the land acquisition officer referred the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, as directed by this Court, and whether right or wrong, the Sub Court has passed final order on that reference, the order of the Sub Court cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition. However, Mr. He also contended that inasmuch as the land acquisition officer referred the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, as directed by this Court, and whether right or wrong, the Sub Court has passed final order on that reference, the order of the Sub Court cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition. However, Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that in the light of the earlier order of this Court direction for reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in directing the Land Acquisition Officer and the respondents to deposit the compensation amount. 11. On going through the entire earlier proceedings and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge for the following reasons. As per the Revenue records, the writ appellants alone are the owners of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer on verification from the Revenue records, issued notices to the writ appellants. In fact, they alone participated in the award enquiry and raised their objections. It is also seen that only at their instance the matter was referred to Sub Court under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. No doubt, the writ petitioners claimed title to the property by way of purchase from their vendors. It is not in dispute that the Revenue records do not disclose their name as owners of the property acquired. Though they secured an order from this Court for reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, the learned Subordinate Judge after finding that the amount deposited in the award proceedings had been withdrawn by the land owners (writ appellants), rejected the reference. Admittedly, the writ petitioners did not file any appeal to this Court under Section 54 of the Act. 12. The Scheme of the Act, namely, Section 11 enables the land acquisition officer/Collector to pass an award after conducting enquiry into measurements, value and claims of the parties. Section 11-A mandates that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of 2 years from the date of publication of the declaration. 12. The Scheme of the Act, namely, Section 11 enables the land acquisition officer/Collector to pass an award after conducting enquiry into measurements, value and claims of the parties. Section 11-A mandates that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of 2 years from the date of publication of the declaration. After passing of an award under Section 11, the Collector is permitted to take possession of the land under Section 16 and thereupon it vests absolutely from the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 18 speaks about reference to Court. As per Sub-Section (1) of Section 18, any person interested who has not accepted the award may raise objections by way of written application to the Collector, as to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. The application shall be made if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within 6 weeks from the date of the Collector’s award, and in other cases, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 or within 6 months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. Section 30 speaks about dispute as to apportionment. When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. It is clear that after the award under Section 11, any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the same has to be considered by the Court on reference by the Collector. As discussed earlier, whether right or wrong a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer, in compliance with the order, referred the matter to the Sub Court. This is evident from the order dated 10-02-2003 in Contempt Petition No. 37/2003. This is evident from the order dated 10-02-2003 in Contempt Petition No. 37/2003. It is true that the Sub Court has not answered the reference and rejected the same. Though the said order was also canvassed by way of Revision, the same was dismissed by this Court-vide order dated 12-12-2003 in C.R.P.No.1636/2003. 13. Now in such circumstances, we have to see whether there is any justification in the order of the learned Single Judge in giving direction to deposit the amount and further direction to the sub Court to dispose of the reference. It is worthwhile to refer an earlier Division Bench judgement in CHENGALVARAYA v. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS, reported in AIR 1965 Madras 376, wherein in almost identical factual position, the Division Bench directed the aggrieved party to file a suit to establish his claim. It is further seen that the Court below rejected a reference made by Collector to it under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that as the amount of compensation had already been paid out to one of the claimants, the Court could not consider the question of title as between the rival claimants and directed the claimant to file a suit to establish his claim. Considering the said order of the Civil Court, by pointing out Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which confers a right of appeal to an aggrieved party, to the High Court from an award or part of an award passed by the Court, the Division Bench has concluded that the proper remedy is to file an appeal. The Division Bench also concluded that once there has been a proper reference before the court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, all orders passed by court finally disposing of the reference, must be subject to an appeal, as they will have the effect of either confirming the award or adjudicating title to the compensation money, which will be res judicata in later proceedings. The Division Bench also observed that it will be immaterial on what ground such orders were passed by the court, whatever it be on the merits or on some technical point. The Division Bench also observed that it will be immaterial on what ground such orders were passed by the court, whatever it be on the merits or on some technical point. To put it clear, according to the Division Bench, the orders passed by a Court, on a reference made to it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, finally disposing of the reference, must be subject to an appeal, as they will have the effect of either confirming the award or adjudicating title to the compensation amount. In para 12 the Division Bench has finally concluded that, “we are of opinion that where there has been a valid reference to the Court, whether under Section 19, 30 or 31, any order passed by the Court finally disposing of the matter so far as it was concerned would be appealable…..” We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have not filed appeal under Section 54 of the Act. 14. In VENKATA REDDY v. KRISHNA RAO, reported in 1982 Andhra Law Times Reports page 166, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has concluded that if a person who is not a party to the enquiry by the Collector raises a dispute, the Collector can refuse to refer the dispute to Civil Court and such person’s remedy is to file a Civil Suit. 15. It is also relevant to refer another decision of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer V. Shivabai, reported in (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 710 wherein Their Lordships have held that, (para.9) “9….It is now settled position in law that the claimants who receive compensation under protest and who make application under Section 18 (1), alone are entitled to seek a reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference under Section 18. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference court is clearly illegal….” 16. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference court is clearly illegal….” 16. In S. MOHAMED BADRALAM v. R.D.O., MADURAI, reported in 1967 M.L.J. 327, it was held that “in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 18 the Court below cannot proceed to decide as to which of the claimants will be entitled to the compensation." It was further held that, (at page 328) "the Court will have no jurisdiction to call upon the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount, though such officer in disobedience of Section 31 (2) has improperly disbursed the compensation, ignoring the fact that there was a dispute as to who among the claimants was entitled to receive it". 17. The analysis of the statutory provisions, namely, Section 11, 11-A, 18, 30 and 31 of the Act as well as various decisions, referred to above, and in view of the fact that writ petitioners were not parties in any of the land acquisition proceedings upto the stage of passing of award, and that the Sub Court, on receipt of the references from the Land Acquisition Officer, declined to consider the reference on the ground that the amount had been disbursed to the land owners, in the absence of statutory appeal against such order under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the Land Acquisition Officer and other respondents to deposit the amount and further direction as to disbursement etc. The order dated 21-6-2004 in W.P.No.17256 of 2003 is liable to be set aside. 18. Now we shall consider the other points relating to appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and Cross Objection by the land owners. The total extent of land involved is 52 Cents. It lies in Survey No. 217/2 in Then Singampunari. The said lands were acquired to provide house-sites to Backward Class people. 4 (1) Notification was published in the gazette on 21-6-2000. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 4/2000-2001 dated 5-9-2001 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4,835/- per Cent. The Land Acquisition Officer basing reliance on sale transaction that had taken place on 10-4-2000 in respect of a land in Survey No. 162/1 (roughly 1713 sq.ft. 4 (1) Notification was published in the gazette on 21-6-2000. The Land Acquisition Officer in Award No. 4/2000-2001 dated 5-9-2001 fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4,835/- per Cent. The Land Acquisition Officer basing reliance on sale transaction that had taken place on 10-4-2000 in respect of a land in Survey No. 162/1 (roughly 1713 sq.ft. of land) sold for Rs.19,000/- fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.4,83,596/- per Acre and Rs.4835/- per Cent. Not satisfied with the amount, at the instance of the land owners, respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No. 819/2004, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act resulting in L.A.O.P.No.1/2001 on the file of Sub Court, Sivaganga. Before the Sub Court, on the side of the claimants four witnesses were examined as C.Ws.1 to 4 and six documents marked as Exc. C-1 to C-6. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, Rws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-15 marked. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.14,505/- per cent and also granted other statutory payments. Questioning the same, the Special Tahsildar has filed Appeal Suit No. 819 of 2004. 19. Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Special Tahsildar, submitted that the Subordinate Judge has committed an error in enhancing compensation exorbitantly from Rs.4,835/- to Rs.14,505/- without assigning acceptable reason. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land owners (respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No.819/2004) submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge is perfectly right in enhancing the compensation in so far as the lands are concerned. He further contended that the Court below failed to fix compensation for the 39 houses constructed by the claimants. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the First Appeal and for allowing Cross Objection by granting compensation for the houses. He also submitted that they are willing to pay necessary court-fees in the event of allowing the Cross Objection. 20. It is seen from the materials placed the extent of 52 Cents in Survey No. 217/2 lie in Ward No.6 which is in Madhavan Nagar. The sales statistics with sketch has been marked as Ex.R-7 which shows the actual location of the acquired land and other survey numbers in and around. 20. It is seen from the materials placed the extent of 52 Cents in Survey No. 217/2 lie in Ward No.6 which is in Madhavan Nagar. The sales statistics with sketch has been marked as Ex.R-7 which shows the actual location of the acquired land and other survey numbers in and around. The Land Acquisition Officer after finding that the land in S.No. 162/1 (item 25) was sold at the rate of Rs.4,83,596/- per Acre which works out to Rs.4,835/- per Cent and after finding that the said land and the acquired land are similar in all aspects including ‘Tharam’, soil etc., fixed the same amount namely Rs.4,835/- per Cent for the acquired land. The learned Subordinate Judge on verification of the sketch-Ex.R-7, found that the land in Survey No. 162/1 (item 25) is at a distance of 1 K.M. from Survey No. 217/2. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, Exs. C-5 and C-6 dated 1-7-99 and 24-8-99 respectively were pressed into service on the side of the claimants. The learned Subordinate Judge also verified the distance between the land covered under Exs. C-5 and C-6 as well as the acquired land. After finding that those lands are quite away from the acquired land and situate in a different ward and considering the report of the Commissioner, enhanced the compensation to Rs.14,505/- per Cent i.e., three times of the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The discussion of the learned Subordinate Judge in para 11 shows that in view of the distance factor namely 2 K.M. away from the acquired land, no credence be given to Exs. C-5 and C-6. However, having said so, based on the very same documents coupled with Commissioner’s report, sales statistics furnished by the Sub Registrar, enhanced the amount by three times. We also verified the sale documents-Exs. C-5 and C-6. The land sold under Ex. C-5 situates in Survey No. 559/2 and the extent involved is only 134 sq.ft. The sale transaction had taken place on 19-7-1999. In Ex. C-6, the land sold is 612 sq.ft. which situates in Survey No. 569/2. The sale transaction had taken place on 24-8-99. Though both the transactions had taken place before 4 (1) Notification, admittedly the extent involved is less, namely, 134 sq.ft. and 612 sq.ft., respectively, whereas the acquired land consists 52 Cents. In Ex. C-6, the land sold is 612 sq.ft. which situates in Survey No. 569/2. The sale transaction had taken place on 24-8-99. Though both the transactions had taken place before 4 (1) Notification, admittedly the extent involved is less, namely, 134 sq.ft. and 612 sq.ft., respectively, whereas the acquired land consists 52 Cents. In such a circumstance, considering the distance factor and of the fact that in both the sale deeds, the extent involved is less, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in enhancing the compensation to the extent of 3 times as that of the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the other hand, we are satisfied that considering the distance factor, location, surrounding circumstances etc., ends of justice would be met by fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.9,670/- per Cent (Rs.4,835 x 2 = Rs.9,670) as compensation for the acquired land. To this extent, the award of the Sub Court is to be modified. We confirm all other statutory amounts granted by the Sub Court. 21. Now coming to the Cross Objection relating to houses, the report of the Land Acquisition Officer makes it clear that even before the completion of the acquisition proceedings, the beneficiaries have occupied the land and put up construction and that after constructing houses, they (beneficiaries) are residing there. Though the learned Subordinate Judge has not considered this point with reference to the details relating to the houses, learned Senior Counsel for the claimants very much relied on the report of the Commissioner-Ex.C-1 and Sketch-Ex.C-2. It is true that in Ex.C-1 report, a reference has been made regarding existence of 39 houses in the acquired land. At the most, the statement of the Commissioner in Ex.C-1 makes it clear that 39 houses existed in the acquired land. The question is, whether those houses had already been constructed by the claimants or put up by the beneficiaries who entered the land even before the completion of the acquisition proceedings. To this question, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, absolutely there is no acceptable material on the side of the claimants. The question is, whether those houses had already been constructed by the claimants or put up by the beneficiaries who entered the land even before the completion of the acquisition proceedings. To this question, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, absolutely there is no acceptable material on the side of the claimants. Though 4 witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, there is no acceptable material with reference to the alleged construction of houses and payment of property tax/house tax to the authority concerned. Except the bald statements of C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.3 that there are certain houses, as rightly observed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the same have not been substantiated by placing any evidence. On the other hand, one Vattappan, Selection Grade Assistant in the Office of the Special Tahsildar, Adi-dravidar Welfare, Sivaganga who was examined as R.W.1, has categorically stated that, The above statement of R.W.1 has not been challenged or questioned in the cross-examination. One Manickam, resident of Madhavan Nagar, Singampunari, was examined as R.W.2. In his evidence he has stated that, One Gunasekaran, another beneficiary, was examined as R.W.3. He has deposed in his evidence that, Even in cross-examination, R.Ws.2 and 3 reiterated that the claimants have nothing to do with the houses therein. On the other hand, the same were constructed by the present occupants/beneficiaries. Apart from the oral evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3, the beneficiaries have also produced Pattas issued in their favour, electricity card, payment of house tax, kist, water tax etc. In view of the bald statements of the claimants not supported by any evidence, and on the other hand, the categorical assertion of R.Ws.1 to 3 supported by documents, we hold that the claimants (respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No. 819/2004) are not entitled to compensation for the 39 houses as claimed. Accordingly, the Cross Objection is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the light of our above discussion, we pass the following order: i) The order dated 21-06-2004 made in Writ Petition No. 17256 of 2003 by Single Judge of this Court is set aside; consequently Writ Appeal No. 133 of 2005 is allowed; ii) The respondents 2 to 5 in Writ Appeal No. 133 of 2005 are permitted to approach the Civil Court to establish their title over the acquired land. Though the law of limitation is applicable, in view of the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge granting direction for reference to Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and rejection of the reference by the Sub Court, as a special case, we grant them 3 (three) months’ time from to-day for filing such suit before the appropriate Court. In so far as this limitation is concerned, this cannot be cited as a precedent to other cases. iii) The Judgement and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge is modified and compensation for the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs.9,670/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Six hundred and Seventy only) per Cent. The relief in respect of other statutory amounts are confirmed. Appeal Suit No. 819 of 2004 filed by the Special Tahsildar is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above. iv) Cross Objection SR.No.34287/2005 and C.M.P.SR.No.34288/2005 are dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in all the above proceedings. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.