ORDERS : Challenging the Award dated 28.03.2014 in L.A.O.P. No. 89 of 2013, passed by the learned VI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai, the Special Tahshildar (LA), Highways, I.R.R. Scheme, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk had originally filed A.S. No 294 of 2016 under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the claimant had filed Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019. They came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 05.07.2019, the Division Bench, observing that L.A.O.P. No.89 of 2014 was a reference by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 20(1) of the T.N. Highways Act, 2002, and taking note of the pronouncement by a Division Bench in N.Ponnusamy & another –vs- The Special Tahshildar, Land Acquisition, dated 30.01.2019, that against an order passed on a reference under section 20(1) of the T.N. Highways Act, 2002, only a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie and an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not lie, converted the Appeal Suit as a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, A.S. No. 294 of 2016 was renumbered as C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3663 of 2019 and Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019 was renumbered as C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3651 of 2019. 2. Heard Mr. J. Balagopal, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the Special Tahshildar, (LA)/petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3663 of 2019 and Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the Claimant/petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3651 of 2019. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as Special Tahshildar (LA) and Claimant. 4. The Government of Tamil Nadu had approved the proposal for formation of Southern Sector Inner Ring Road between Velacherry and St. Thomas Mount and acquired 18.85 acres of land. 5. The Claimant possessed lands measuring 0.25 acres (25 cents) in S. No. 665/4 in Velacherry. The Special Tahshildar (LA) had acquired the lands for Inner Road Scheme after the same was notified and publication under Section 15(2) of the T.N. Highways Act, 2002 was effected on 10.06.2004. 6. The claimants are not questioning the acquisition. 7. The Special Tahshildar (LA), had passed Award No. 1/2009, fixing the compensation at Rs.102/- per square feet. The Special Tahshildar (LA) had acquired the lands for Inner Road Scheme after the same was notified and publication under Section 15(2) of the T.N. Highways Act, 2002 was effected on 10.06.2004. 6. The claimants are not questioning the acquisition. 7. The Special Tahshildar (LA), had passed Award No. 1/2009, fixing the compensation at Rs.102/- per square feet. A reference was thereafter made under section 20(1) of the T.N. Highways Act, 2002 before the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to decide a just compensation for the acquired lands. That reference was taken on record as L.A.O.P. No. 89 of 2013 and by order dated 28.03.2014, the learned VI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai , after analysing the evidence of C.W.1, the claimant and R.W.1 on behalf of the Special Tahshildar (LA) and after taking into consideration the documents marked, namely, Ex. C 1 to Ex C13, which were primarily copies of various sale deeds registered in the locality during the proximate period, had enhanced the compensation from Rs.102/- per square feet to Rs.600/- per square feet. Directions were also given with respect to payment of solatium and interest. 8. As stated, challenging that Award, the Special Tahshildar (LA) originally filed A.S. No. 294 of 2016 under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Claimants joined issue and filed Cross Objection No. 1 of 2019. Both, were subsequently directed by a Division Bench to be converted to Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly were renumbered as respectively. 9. Mr. J. Balagopal, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, leaned Counsel stated that with respect to the same notification acquiring lands for the same scheme, a batch of Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 1413 of 2020 batch, The District Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer Southern Sector of Inner Road Scheme Phase-II and another –vs- Dr.Narayani Narasa had been taken for consideration by a learned Single Judge of the Court and by a Common Order dated 01.10.2020, the learned Judge had, after considered appreciation of the law and facts had determined the fair compensation at Rs.1,947/- per square feet, and after providing 15% deduction towards development charges, had fixed the compensation amount at Rs.1,655/- per square feet. 10. Both Mr. J. Blalagopal learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. 10. Both Mr. J. Blalagopal learned Special Government Pleader and Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, leaned Counsel, in unison stated that the same compensation can be fixed in the instant case also. 11. With respect to determining the fair compensation, the learned Judge had held as follows in para 37 : “37. As admitted by the official witness it is very clear that the Velachery area is a prime locality and a developed area and the growth very fast and availability of lands have become dear. I have already observed that the land acquired is surrounded by so many Commercial and Residential Buildings and Bus Stand, MRTS Fly-Over and IT Parks, the rapid development is obvious. Therefore, as observed by the Tribunal below escalation of price has gone beyond 50%. The Tribunal has also rightly rejected the current guideline value prevailing for residential area at Rs.10,000/- per sq.ft and Rs.12,000/- per Sq.ft as they are supported by material evidence. But it cannot be denied that the land value has increased double or triple the value, if not six to seven times more. The present project is also one of the reasons for such manifold price hike. Therefore, applying the judicial experience and discretion I deem it just to give 60% escalation to the market price fixed on the basis of the comparative values of the sale deed and guideline rate at the relevant point of time and thereafter. Accordingly, 60% enhancement over the market value viz, Rs.1217/- per Sq.ft is taken for arriving at the fair compensation, which works out to Rs.1947/- per Sq.ft.” 12. With respect to the development charges incurred by the Government, the learned Judge reasoned as follows : “46. Admittedly, the land acquired measures a larger extents of 18 acres and 85 cents. Though major portion comprise of house sites, it cannot be denied that it also comprise of approved, unapproved, developed, undeveloped house sites and dry lands also. Neither can it be denied that the alignment of the 100 feet road will not fall exactly over the roads developed on approved layouts, nor can it be asserted that the roads formed in these approved and unapproved layouts are contiguous and does not require formation or extension or laying of new stretch of roads by levelling the ground. Neither can it be denied that the alignment of the 100 feet road will not fall exactly over the roads developed on approved layouts, nor can it be asserted that the roads formed in these approved and unapproved layouts are contiguous and does not require formation or extension or laying of new stretch of roads by levelling the ground. The terrain cannot be said to be uniform and the authorities may be needed to form elevated roads and build over bridges and culverts, where it crosses waterways. Of course, filling may be required for levelling the dry lands, more particularly, when the acquisition involves larger extent of land…. 47…. Even though, no evidence has been adduced, it is common knowledge that for the purpose of providing facilities to the commuters or road users, more particularly long distance travellers developments shall be made. Access to Restaurants, Gas Stations, Truck lay by, Bus Stops and Bus shelters, Mechanic Shops and Road utility services have to be provided. 48. The electric poles erected for domestic purpose on a 30” or 40” road will not be enough to cover the area and width of a 100” road. The dimensions of the electrical poles, breadth wise, Height and depth wise shall correspond to the formation of 100 feet broad road and other facilities. Thus, the electric poles, certainly, shall possess strength to bear the heavy winds, rains and storms etc. Depending upon the technical advice, specifications and feasibility metals like Iron, Aluminium etc., may be used to withhold the situations indicated above. Apart from the poles, the wires and all other allied equipments, transformers and sub-stations have to be established. Further water drainage is another factor of serious contemplation to avoid stagnations, accidents and smooth commutation. 51. In that view of the matter, considering the ratio laid down in the other judgments, I deem it fit to allow minimum of 15% deduction towards development charges. Thus, after deducting 15% towards development charges, the rate of compensation works out to: - Rs.1947 x 15/100 = Rs.292.05/- Rs.1947 – Rs.292/- = Rs.1655/- sq.ft. (Rounded off to Rs.1655/- per sq.ft.)” 13. I would very gladly apply the same reasons and would also determine the land value in the instant Civil Revsion Petitions at Rs. 1,655/- per square feet. 14. (Rounded off to Rs.1655/- per sq.ft.)” 13. I would very gladly apply the same reasons and would also determine the land value in the instant Civil Revsion Petitions at Rs. 1,655/- per square feet. 14. C.M.P. No. 5600 of 2016 had been filed in A.S. No. 294 of 2016 by the Special Tahshildar (LA) seeking stay of the Award dated 28.03.2014 in L.A.O.P. No. 89 of 2013 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. A Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 13.04.2016 : “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/State/appellant. 2. There will be an order of interim stay of the execution o the decree dated 28.03.2014 for a period of 8 weeks subject to condition that the petitioner/appellant depositing the entire enhanced award amount to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.89 of 2013 in Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks initially for a period of three years, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which shall be renewed periodically till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Notice to the respondent/claimant returnable infour weeks.” 15. Subsequently, C.M.P. No. 1706 of 2018 came to be filed by the claimant and in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it had been stated as follows : “4. I submit on 12.12.2017 I came to know that the Respondent/Appellant deposited the award amount of a sum of Rs.2,04,90,369/- on 24.11.2017 in thecredit of L.A.O.P. 89/2013 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai,…” 16. The application was filed seeking permission to withdraw the said amount. 17. The records are not clear whether permission had been granted. However, it is stated that 50% of the amount had been withdrawn. Orders are passed in C.M.P. No. 1706 of 2018 permitting the claimant herein to withdraw the balance 50% so deposited on 24.11.2017, together with accrued interest on proper identification and undertaking in accordance with the procedure. The said C.M.P. No. 1706 of 2018 is therefore allowed. 18. In the result, i. The Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed by modifying the award as indicated. ii. The land value is uniformly fixed at Rs.1,655/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred and fifty five only) per sq.ft. iii. The said C.M.P. No. 1706 of 2018 is therefore allowed. 18. In the result, i. The Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed by modifying the award as indicated. ii. The land value is uniformly fixed at Rs.1,655/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred and fifty five only) per sq.ft. iii. The claimant is entitled to all other statutory benefits particularly interest as per Section 28 and its proviso of Land Acquisition Act viz., the other benefits provided to the claimant by the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in the above Award, stands confirmed. iv. Twelve weeks time is granted for deposit of the Award amount from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. v. If the Award amount is not so deposited, the claimant is permitted to file necessary Execution Petition for necessary reliefs. vi. C.M.P. No. 1706 of 2018 is allowed. Other connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. vii. The learned Special Government Pleader/Counsel for Government is entitled to get separate fee for the two Civil Revision Petitions. viii. There shall be no order as to costs.