JUDGMENT : S.S. Sundar, J. The Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 190473 of 2022, dated 26.09.2022. The Writ Appeals in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024 have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.11108 and 11109 of 2017, dated 26.10.2021. 2. For the sake of convenience, the 1 st respondent in W.A. Nos 1094 of 2024 and in 1096 of 2024 respectively, who are the appellants in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022, are referred to as the "writ petitioners." Meanwhile, the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024, along with the 3 rd respondent in W.A. No. 2829 of 2022, are referred to as the "respondents." Brief Facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows; 3. The writ petitioners, who are arrayed as 1 st respondent in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024, filed writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 praying for declaration that the rate decided by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 7(b) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, they sought a direction to respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petitions to determine the compensation payable to them in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and to pay the amount with interest. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No. 11108 of 2017 is a company which was promoted by the husband of petitioner in W.P.No. 11109 of 2007. These writ petitioners are the appellants in writ appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2022. The 1 st appellant company purchased an extent of 62 cents of land comprised in survey nos. 241/1 A, 256/2B, 256/C in the name of first appellant and an extent of 2.44 acres in survey no. 241/1A and 256/2C in the name of second appellant. Both the lands are in Irugur Village. It is stated that the factory and the building was constructed in the land owned by the company and huge money has been invested and machinery has been installed. 241/1A and 256/2C in the name of second appellant. Both the lands are in Irugur Village. It is stated that the factory and the building was constructed in the land owned by the company and huge money has been invested and machinery has been installed. The Government issued several notifications for acquisition of lands measuring vast extent of 627.8 Acres in four villages including Irugur Village for expansion of run way at Coimbatore Airport. The Government issued notification invoking provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisitions of land for Industrial Purpose for acquiring lands. 5. It is seen that some of the lands belong to the Government and other department lands also transferred for this purpose. As far as writ petitioners are concerned, it is stated that a notification dated 11.05.2012 was issued by the District Collector under Section 3 (2) of Tamil Nadu acquisition of land for Industrial purposes Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as State Act). Although the writ petitioners submitted their objections to the Collector, it is contended by the writ petitioners that no communication was received from the Land Acquisition Officer thereafter. However, G.O. Ms. No. 251, dated 31.12.2013, was later issued under Section 3(1) of the State Act, and published in the Government Gazette. The writ petitioners raised several grounds regarding procedural irregularities in the land acquisition process. However, the primary issue in these appeals relates to the determination of compensation. Acquisition proceedings are not challenged by the writ petitioners. 6. The writ petitioners claim that they were initially unaware of the specific lands which are being acquired for the Coimbatore Airport expansion. They had already availed huge loans for their business, and due to the acquisition proceedings, the loan was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), leading to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the bank. The contention of the writ petitioners is that they were not informed about the award proceedings initiated by the respondents. It is stated that it was only through applications filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act they received information about the award. Challenging the communication received from the respondents and seeking directions to determine and disburse the compensation in accordance with Act 30 of 2013, two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. It is stated that it was only through applications filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act they received information about the award. Challenging the communication received from the respondents and seeking directions to determine and disburse the compensation in accordance with Act 30 of 2013, two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 were filed in respect of the land owned by the company as well as the land purchased in the name of the wife of the Managing Director of the company. 7. By order dated 26.10.2021, the learned Single Judge of this Court considered the fact that, in a previous batch of writ petitions, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.03.2019, had fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,500 per sq. ft. for urban area and Rs. 900 per sq. ft. for rural areas, based on consent letters tendered by the landowners. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the District Collector, Coimbatore, to determine the compensation for the acquired land in the light of the order of Division Bench, including solatium and interest, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The compensation amount was to be disbursed within four weeks thereafter. The writ petitioners were directed to submit a fresh representation before the authorities regarding their further grievance that an extent of 1.74 acres, which was not acquired, has now been left isolated without access for ingress and egress. The relevant portion of the common order dated 26.10.2021 in W.P.No. 11108 of 2017 and W.P.No. 11109 of 2017 read as follows; " 14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the batch of connected writ petitions disposed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 18.08.2020 in W.P.Nos.2116 of 2017 etc., dated 12.09.2019 in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that "The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Extension of Runway at Coimbatore International Airport, convened the meeting with the concerned officials of the AAI, wherein, the land owners have also participated and in respect of Block No.7 / house sites, compensation was sought to be fixed at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. and for agricultural lands, compensation was sought to be fixed at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq.ft., so also in respect of the lands in Block Nos.1, 2. and for agricultural lands, compensation was sought to be fixed at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq.ft., so also in respect of the lands in Block Nos.1, 2. In respect of Block No.15 of Kalapatti Village, it was fixed at the rate of Rs.900/- per sq.ft. for the lands which are classified as agricultural lands as per the revenue records." 15. On the strength of the same, in a batch of other connected writ petitions, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that "A first round of negotiation in the year 2015 failed between the petitioners and the State Government, but after the filing of the writ petitions, the negotiations were again attempted and ultimately, vide resolution dated 06.3.2018, negotiations succeeded between a majority of the land owners and the State Government barring a few exceptions. These negotiations which were finalized based on the consent letters tendered by most of the tenure holders, including the majority of the petitioners. The fact of this negotiation having been undertaken is undisputed and the rates that were arrived at for payment was Rs.1500/- per square feet for urban area and Rs.900/- per square feet for rural area. After the negotiations were held and documented, the same were forwarded mentioning therein the numbers of the writ petitions for being dealt with by the District Level Committee. The same is dated 10.8.2018 and has been placed on record. Since the pecuniary involvement according to the Government Orders referred to therein was such that it had to be finalized by the State Level Committee, the same was considered by the State Level Committee and approved, whereafter recommendations were made to the State Government vide letter dated 16.10.2018 for sanctioning the same and entering into the formal agreements as per the consent letters given by the land owners. 16. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. for urban area and Rs.900/- per sq.ft. for rural area as per their consent letter tendered by the land owners. In the case on hand, the petitioners never submitted any consent letter, with regard to the subject land situated at Block No.17, Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. Compensation for the similarly placed persons land were determined at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. and they also received the same. 17. In the case on hand, the petitioners never submitted any consent letter, with regard to the subject land situated at Block No.17, Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District. Compensation for the similarly placed persons land were determined at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. and they also received the same. 17. Considering the above, the second respondent is directed to determine the value of the compensation for the land subjected for acquisition, in view of the above order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court with solatium and interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and disburse the compensation amount forthwith within a period of four weeks thereafter. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remaining land to an extent of 1.74 acres, now became isolated without any ingress. Considering the said submission, the petitioners are directed to submit a representation before the authorities concerned and the same may be considered on merits in accordance with law." The above order is challenged in the writ appeals in W.A.No. 1094 & 1096 of 2024. 8. After the order of the learned Single Judge, the District Collector, Coimbatore who is the competent authority, passed an award by proceedings dated 30.06.2022 in respect of the lands belonged to the writ petitioners. The total extent of 0.18.54 hectre equivalent to 1854 sq.meters (19,956 sq.feet) comprising in three survey numbers, was acquired from the holdings of the writ petitioners. The compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.ft in respect of an extent of 0.07.20 hectrs in survey no 241/1A and an extent of 0.08.70 hectre in survye no. 256 /2C. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was fixed per acre for an extent of 0.02.64 hectre in survey number 256/2B. The award passed by the District Collector indicates that it is an independent award pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.08.2021 in the writ petitions. There is no reference to the compensation fixed by consent in favour of other landowners whose lands were acquired for same purpose. A sum of Rs.1,57,29,643/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven Lakhs Six Hundred and Forty Three only) was awarded towards compensation for the entire lands. 9. A sum of Rs. There is no reference to the compensation fixed by consent in favour of other landowners whose lands were acquired for same purpose. A sum of Rs.1,57,29,643/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Seven Lakhs Six Hundred and Forty Three only) was awarded towards compensation for the entire lands. 9. A sum of Rs. 1,56,43,092/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Six Lakhs Forty- Three Thousand and Ninety-Two only) was awarded as compensation for the land in Survey No. 241/1A and 256/2C and a sum of Rs. 86,551/- was awarded for the land in survey no.256/2B. Challenging the said award dated 30.06.2022, the writ petitioners filed the third writ petition in W.P. No. 190473 of 2022 to quash the award and to direct the District Collector to determine the compensation amount as Rs. 1,500 per square foot, with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of issuance of notice under Section 3(2) and solatium, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. Nos. 11108 and 11109 of 2017, dated 26.10.2021, following the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 2116 of 2017& etc., batch, dated 18.08.2000. We have seen that challenging the order passed in W.P.No. 11108 and 11109 of 2017, the State Government along with the District Collector and Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition have preferred writ appeals in W.A.No. 1094 & 1096 of 2024 . 10. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that despite specific directions issued by this Court, the District Collector passed an award granting compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.ft and Rs.6.88 per sq.ft in the case of the lands belonging to the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.09.2022, disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No. 19473 of 2022 filed by the appellants, giving the following directions; "5. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners' land was acquired under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 in the year 2020, however, the compensation amount was not determined by the Land Acquisition Officer/District Collector and the same was determined only in the year 2022. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners' land was acquired under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 in the year 2020, however, the compensation amount was not determined by the Land Acquisition Officer/District Collector and the same was determined only in the year 2022. Though the petitioners have raised several issue for redetermination of compensation before this Court, however, there is a mechanism available under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 to refer the matter for re- determination of compensation. Hence, rendering any opinion in the midst of the case would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner. 6. In view of the consent view expressed by the petitioners' counsel, this Court without without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, issues the following directions: (i) the official respondents are directed to refer the matter before the Competent Civil Court for re-determination of compensation amount in terms of section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 , within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) upon such reference the Competent Civil Court is directed to determine the compensation in terms of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , as expeditiously as possible. (iii) the official respondents are further directed to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the petitioners, which was fixed on 30.06.2022, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioners are directed to receive the compensation amount without prejudice to the rights. (iv) Further, this Court grants liberty to the petitioners' to raise all the issue before the Competent Civil Court and the Civil Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible." 11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19473 of 2022, the respondents in the writ petition have filed a writ appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2022. The District Collector has passed further order pursuant to the directions of this Court in two writ petitions in W.P.No. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 dated 26.10.2021. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19473 of 2022, the respondents in the writ petition have filed a writ appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2022. The District Collector has passed further order pursuant to the directions of this Court in two writ petitions in W.P.No. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 dated 26.10.2021. Since the primary contention of the appellant in W.A.No. 2829 of 2022 is that the award passed is contrary to the directions of the learned Single Judge dated 26.10.2021 and the order dated 26.10.2021 is also challenged in the appeals in W.A.Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024, this Court has taken up all the writ appeals together. 12. The writ petitioners are primarily concerned about the quantum of compensation. Their grievance is that the compensation paid to others who agreed to receive by consent was higher. The Hon'ble Division Bench, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 2116 of 2017 & etc., batch (P.R. Jaganath v. Secretary, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others) , found that the respondents agreed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per sq. ft. for house sites and Rs. 900 per sq. ft. for agricultural lands based on consent letters given by the landowners. For landowners who had not submitted consent letters, the Division Bench directed the second respondent/District Collector to determine the value of compensation for the land, including solatium and interest, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 13. There is no factual issue. This Court understands that several landowners agreed to receive compensation through negotiations by entering into agreements in terms of Section 7(2) of State Act. However, several others did not agree to receive compensation by agreement. Hence, the Division Bench in such cases granted liberty to the land owners to seek reference to the District Collector to pass award under Section 7(3) of 1997 Act. The writ petitioners had two options: either to accept compensation by consent at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per sq. ft. and Rs. 900 per sq. ft., depending upon the location of the land, or to get compensation determined by the District Collector based on available documents reflecting market value and to get statutory benefits in terms of Section 7(3) and 7(6) of the Act. 1,500 per sq. ft. and Rs. 900 per sq. ft., depending upon the location of the land, or to get compensation determined by the District Collector based on available documents reflecting market value and to get statutory benefits in terms of Section 7(3) and 7(6) of the Act. Though the Act was struck down by this Court on the ground of repugnancy, it is admitted that the State Government came up with a validation Act namely The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019. By virtue of this, the Act and Rules revived. However, provisions relating to determination of compensation as specified under the Act 30 of 2013 (Central Act) shall apply to the land acquisition under the State Act. The validation Act has been upheld by this Court. 14. It is to be pointed out that when the land owner received compensation by agreement, the compensation is offered and given as a package and therefore, additional amounts towards interest and solatium does not arise. In the present case, since no agreement was reached between the writ petitioners and the respondents regarding the quantum of compensation, the learned Single Judge directed the District Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court for redetermining the compensation under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 , within four weeks. The competent Civil Court was also directed to determine the compensation in terms of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , leaving it open to the writ petitioner to raise all their contentions before the competent civil court. 15. This Court finds no irregularity in the order, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, the land was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act if, in the Government's opinion, the land is required for any industrial purpose. The term "industrial purpose" is broadly defined under the Act. Before issuing a notification under Section 3(1), the requirements of Sections 3(2) and 3(3) must be followed. The term "industrial purpose" is broadly defined under the Act. Before issuing a notification under Section 3(1), the requirements of Sections 3(2) and 3(3) must be followed. Once a notice is issued under Section 3(1), the land vests absolutely with the Government, free from all encumbrances Even before the payment of any compensation which is payable to the land owners under the Act, possession of the land also can be taken by exercising powers under Section 4(2) & 4(3) of the Act. 16. Of course, Under Section 6 of the Act, every owner or interested person is entitled to receive compensation as determined under the Act. Under Section 7, the Government must pay the amount determined according to the provisions of the Act. Section 7(2) allows for the amount to be determined through an agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount is payable. If no agreement is reached, the Government must refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the amount and the persons to whom it should be paid. The District Collector must follow a fair procedure, giving every person an opportunity to present their case regarding the amount of compensation. Even after reference, the Collector may determine compensation through agreement. While determining compensation, the market value should be determined as on the date of preliminary notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Act. Any person aggrieved by the District Collector's decision under Section 7, determining compensation, may request the matter to be referred for determination of just compensation by Court within sixty days in terms of Section 8 of the Act. 17. From the provisions above referred to, particularly Section 8 of the Act, the persons aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector has only an option to seek reference in terms of Section 8 of the Act. In this case, even though it is stated that the order of the District Collector is quite contrary to the earlier directions of this Court, this Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.10.2021 in W.P.No. 11108 & 11109 of 2017 in view of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier batch of cases wherein two types of cases have been dealt with. The first category of cases are where compensation is determined by agreement and in the second category of cases, the Division Bench has directed reference to the District Collector to fix the compensation in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act. In the present case, the award passed by the District Collector is in terms of Act 30 of 2013. All the statutory benefits that are required to be added, had been given in the award. The compensation has been fixed following the procedure in terms of Act 30 of 2013 (Central Act). However, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that very low amount is fixed as market value. 18. It is submitted by the learned Addl.Advocate General that the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft and Rs.900/- per sq.ft in respect of urban and agricultural lands respectively only for those who had entere into agreement and the said amounts fixed as compensation did not carry any additional statutory benefits as the said amount was accepted as a complete package. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the additional amount such as solatium and interest does not arise in those cases where compensation is fixed by agreement. Hence in the present case, the writ petitioners cannot expect the District Collector to fix market value at Rs.1500/- or Rs.900/- as the case may be and then to fix compensation by adopting the calculation specified under the Act 30 of 2013. It is open to the appellants to lead independent evidence to get maximum compensation by producing documents, to show that the value of the lands on the date of notification under Section 3 (2) of the Act was much more than the amount determined by the District Collector in the impugned order. This can be done only by reference in terms of Section 8 of 1997 State Act. 19. This Court is convinced that the order of learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and it serve the interest of the writ petitioners more than the interst of State. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ Appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2024 and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 29.06.2022 in W.P.No. 19473 of 2022. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Similarly, the common order dated 26.10.2021 in W.P.Nos. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ Appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2024 and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 29.06.2022 in W.P.No. 19473 of 2022. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Similarly, the common order dated 26.10.2021 in W.P.Nos. 11108 and 11109 of 2017 is set aside as the order is in ignorance of statutory provisions and on a wrong understanding of the order of the Division Bench dated 18.08.2020 in the batch of cases. 20. In view of the fact that this Court has now upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge referring the matter to the Civil Court, the official respondents are directed to ensure that the reference to the Civil Court is not delayed as directed by the learned Single Judge. Whatever amount that is fixed as compensation as per impugned award shall be disbursed to the writ petitioners forthwith. This payment may be received by the writ petitioners without prejudice to their rights to seek enhancement of compensation before the reference Court. Reference to civil court shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order with due intimation to the writ petitioners. 21. In conclusion, writ appeal in W.A.No. 2829 of 2024 is dismissed and writ appeals in W.A. Nos. 1094 and 1096 of 2024 are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.