Judgment :- Animadverting upon the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, in (i) L.A.O.P.Nos.47, 54, 55, 53, 79, 80, 83 and 86 of 1997 respectively dated 09.04.2008 and (ii) L.A.O.P.Nos. 45, 48, 50, 51 and 52 of 1997 respectively, dated 24.10.2007, the Government has filed these appeals. 2. Heard Mr.S.Pasupatheeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) for the appellant in all the appeals and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for R1 in A.S.Nos.447, 448, 450 and 465 to 469 of 2011; and for R1 to R6 in A.S.No.449 of 2011. Notice to the respondents earlier ordered, but so far, notice could not be served. However, for requisitioning institution, Mr.V.Perumal represented. For others, no notice is required at all, for the reason that in similar matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLPs which were filed, challenging the orders of this Court. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring various lands in Mornapalli Village, Dharmapuri District, Hosur Taluk, for the purpose of locating SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Unit -II at Hosur. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,48,630.20 (per hectare). Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,77,600/- per acre. 5. At the hearing, it transpired that the lands involved in these cases were acquired along with other lands belonging to various other persons and the common Awards 1 and 2 of 1997 were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appeals filed by the other persons as against the judgment of the lower Court were disposed of by my learned Predecessor, vide the common judgment dated 05.08.2010 in A.S.Nos.429 to 442 of 2008 etc. batch, upholding the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,77,600/-per acre awarded by the lower Court. 6. These appeals are as against the judgments of the lower Court assessing the compensation in a same sum of Rs.4,77,600/-per acre. batch, upholding the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,77,600/-per acre awarded by the lower Court. 6. These appeals are as against the judgments of the lower Court assessing the compensation in a same sum of Rs.4,77,600/-per acre. As of now, what I could understand is that, finality has been achieved in respect of the assessing of the compensation in respect of one acre of land in a sum of Rs.4,77,600/- and there is nothing to indicate that the order passed by this Court earlier by my learned Predecessor was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader (A.S.) would produce a copy of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment passed in SLP (Civil) Nos.13206 to 13251 of 2011, the relevant portion would run thus: "The learned Single Judge held that the Reference Court was justified in relying upon the two sale deeds of 1994 for the purpose of fixing market rate and deduction of 40% was also justified. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. In our view, the Reference Court had rightly applied the principles laid down by this Court for determination of the compensation and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to interfere with the said determination. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed." 8. As such, I could see no reason to distinguish and differentiate the case of the claimants/land losers in these matters. The appellant/State having accepted this Court's judgment assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.4,77,600/-per acre, cannot with regard to the claimants/land losers in these cases, question the quantum for no special reasons. Hence, I could see no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.