Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS), Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Hosuing Board, for whose benefits the lands were acquired and also Mr.P.Jagadeesan and N.Thiagarajan for the other respondents. 2. Though the respondents 6 and 7 died in the course of the appeal, the legal representative have been brought on record. In respect of the 10th respondent, it is now pointed out that the legal heirs of the 10th respondent are the Respondents 11, 12 and 13 and they are already on record and therefore there is no necessity to bring the legal representatives on record separately. 3. This is an appeal filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Namakkal, presently Salem arises out of LAOP No.123 of 1986 dated 11.7.2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankagiri. The lands of the respondents were taken over for the purpose of forming the Neighbourhood Scheme to be executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The acquiring authority fixed the market value of the land at the rate of 56 paise per Sq.ft. The aggrieved land owners raised objection regarding the low rate of compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred under section 18(1) of the Act for determination of market value by the jurisdictional reference court. Ultimately, this matter was assigned to the Sub Court, Sankagiri and it was taken over as LAOP No.123 of 1986. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.3.50 per Sq.ft. 4. Before the court below, on the side of the claimants, 6 witnesses were examined as C.Ws.1 to 6. On their side, 10 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.C.1 to C.10. On the side of the appellant, 5 witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 5 and 9 documents were filed and marked as Ex.R.1 to R.9. It is significant that Ex.C.7 is the order passed by the Sub Court, Salem in LAOP Nos.27 and 28 of 1992 and 13/1993 dated 29.9.1995. The Reference Court after referring to the evidence both orally and documentary fixed the compensation as set out above together with other statutory dues. It is this judgment and decree which is under appeal. 5. It is significant that Ex.C.7 is the order passed by the Sub Court, Salem in LAOP Nos.27 and 28 of 1992 and 13/1993 dated 29.9.1995. The Reference Court after referring to the evidence both orally and documentary fixed the compensation as set out above together with other statutory dues. It is this judgment and decree which is under appeal. 5. When the appeal is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Ex.C.7 relating to LAOP Nos.27 and 28 of 1992 and 13 of 1993 dated 29.9.1995 relating to the acquisition of the lands in the same village was challenged before this Court both at the instance of the acquiring authority as well as the land owners and these appeals in A.S.No.329 of 1997 and batch cases along with the Cross Objection No.22 of 2006 came to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench by judgment dated 15.12.2009 confirmed the award passed by the reference court, which became the material evidence on the side of the claimants in this case as Ex.C.7. 6. In operative portion of the Division Bench order, in paragraph No.6, it was observed as follows: "The Court below therefore, taking note of the advantages which were existing to the acquired lands, thought it fit to make a deduction of 20% for arriving the market value of the property. Ultimately, it rounded it off to Rs.3.50/-per square feet. For rejecting Ex.C.1, the Court below has given valid reasons. It has found that Ex.C.1 related to a land in Survey No.349/5-C, Pallipalayam village which is in the 7th Ward whereas the acquired lands are all situated in Ward No.5. It has also taken into consideration the fact that Exs.R.4 to R.7 which were part of the acquired lands. Therefore, the said reasoning of the Court below cannot also be faulted. In paragraph No.8, it was observed as follows: "As stated earlier, deduction of 20% towards development charges was well justified taking into account the various judgments relating to development which was already existing in and around the existing lands having been cited by the Court below which fully justifies the fixation of 20% deduction towards development charges. Therefore, looked at from any angle, we do not find any flaw in the judgment of the Court below while making the enhancement. Therefore, looked at from any angle, we do not find any flaw in the judgment of the Court below while making the enhancement. Therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the same either for deduction towards development charges or for enhancement of compensation at the instance of the Acquisition Officer or at the instance of the claimants. The appeals preferred by the Acquisition Officer as well as the claimants fail and the same are dismissed. Cross-Objection preferred by the claimant is also dismissed." 7. In the present case, apart from the other materials, the court below relied upon a decision of the very same Reference Court, which is also confirmed by the Division Bench. In the light of the judgment cited above, the appeal suit stands dismissed. The award passed by the Reference Court is confirmed. Since the Division Bench did not order costs, this Court also directs that both parties are allowed to bear their own costs.