Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 872 (MAD)

Special Tahsildar (LA) TACID Oragadam Scheme v. B. Jayalakshmi

2025-02-07

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : The appellant in these appeals is the State. All these Appeal Suits arise out of the common judgement dated 30.09.2021 and individual decree (s) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Jude) at Kancheepuram [for short, “the Tribunal”] in L.A.O.P.No.192 of 2008 and batch of cases enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,754/- per cent from Rs.300/- per cent fixed by the LAO for the land(s) acquired from the land owner(s). 2. The appellant in these appeal suits is the Referring Officer - Special Tahsildar (LA), TACID, Oragadam Scheme, Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram District. The private respondent(s) are claimants and the Managing Director, SIPCOT TACID Division, the official respondent is the requisitioning body. 3. For the sake of convenience and for easy reference, the appellant in these appeals will be referred to as the State while the private respondent(s) will be referred to as the claimants and the official respondent will be referred to as the requisitioning body wherever the context so requires. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal Suits in common are as follows:- (a) Each of the claimant(s) either individually or jointly owned/possessed varying extents of land at various survey numbers located in Orgadam village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. (b) A total extent of 113.35.5 Hectares of land in the said village were proposed to be acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the LA Act, 1894”) at the instance of State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) for setting up of Industrial Development Complex by the SIPCOT and for setting up of Special Economic Zones by TACID. (c) For the purpose of acquisition of lands, notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 were issued in the Tamil Nadu Gazette in the instant cases between 01.06.1998 and 28.04.2000. The acquisition was made by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894, and hence, after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act, 1894 a declaration under Section 6 was issued on various dates between 18.06.1998 and 11.02.2000. The acquisition was made by invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894, and hence, after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act, 1894 a declaration under Section 6 was issued on various dates between 18.06.1998 and 11.02.2000. The details of Notifications issued under Section 4(1) and Declarations issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 in respect of the 113.35.5 Hectares of land situated at Oragadam village and acquired form the claimants covered under different awards are as follows: Award No.1/2000 dated 15.03.2000 4(1) Notification dated 08.06.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 09.07.1998 Award No.2/2000 dated 21.01.2000 4(1) Notification dated 01.06.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 18.06.1998 Award No.4/2000 dated 28.02.2000 4(1) Notification dated 14.07.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 21.07.1998 Award No.5/2000 dated 30.06.2000 4(1) Notification dated 05.06.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 09.07.1998 Award No.6/2000 dated 20.04.2000 4(1) Notification dated 19.03.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 02.06.1999 Award No.7/2000 dated 22.05.200 4(1) Notification dated 27.01.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 24.12.1998 Award No.8/2000 dated 31.08.2000 4(1) Notification dated 13.01.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 08.02.1999 Award No.9/2000 dated 06.09.2000 4(1) Notification dated 24.08.1998 Sec.6 declaration dated 28.12.1998 Award No.1/2001 dated 30.04.2001 4(1) Notification dated 05.02.1999 Sec.6 declaration dated 05.05.1999 Award No.2/2001 dated 02.05.2001 4(1) Notification dated 19.03.1999 Award No.3/2001 dated 14.12.2001 4(1) Notification dated 09.11.1999 Sec.6 declaration date 18.01.2000 Award No.4/2001 dated 07.02.2002 4(1) Notification dated 28.04.2000 Sec.6 declaration date 11.02.2000 (d) Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), after due enquiry, determined the compensation payable for the land at Rs.300/- by Award Nos.01 of 2000 dated 15.03.2000; 02 of 2000 dated 21.01.2000; 04 of 2000 dated 28.02.2000; 05 of 2000 dated 30.06.2000; 06 of 2000 dated 20.04.2000; 07 of 2000 dated 22.05.2000; 08 of 2000 dated 31.08.2000; 09 of 2000 dated 06.09.2000; 01 of 2001 dated 30.04.2021; 02/2001 dated 02.05.2001; 03 of 2001 dated 14.12.2001 and 04 of 2001 dated 07.02.2002. (e) Not being satisfied with the compensation so determined by the LAO, the claimant(s) made his/their written objection(s) for enhancement of compensation stating that acquired lands were situated abutting Tambaram – Walajabad State Highway and Singaperumal Koil – Sriperumbudur State Highway and very close by to Grand Southern Trunk Road (GST Road-NH44) and National Highways (NH4); many Central and State Government Offices are located nearby the lands acquired for the Oragadam Industrial Scheme besides several Nationalized and Multinational Banking Institutions; and at the time of acquisition, the value of the land was Rs.3,000/- per square feet. It was also stated by the claimant(s) that the Government have proposed to form Greener International Airport at Sriperumbudur and there is a proposal from the Government of Tamil Nadu to lay 200 feet road from Mamallapuram to Ennore Port via Oragadam and the ground level work for the above two projects were already complete. On such objections, the LAO as Referring Officer made individual reference(s) under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to the Reference Court (Principal Subordinate Judge) at Kanchipuram in respect of the lands situated at Oragadam village in the following Survey Number(s), Extent(s) covered under Award Number(s) and Date(s) and the Reference Court, in turn, took those reference on file and assigned numbers to the references as mentioned in the below mentioned tabular column. Sl. No LAOP No. A.S. No. Name of the Claimant Survey Number Extent of land acquired Award Number and Date 2008 2024 1) 192 912 Nandhagopal 23/6 0.02.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 2) 1 753 Smt.T.Govindammal W/o.Thangaraj 16/72 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 3) 2 740 Mrs.N.Deepa 16/2A1 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 4) 4 802 S.Krishnamoorthy S/o K.Subramanian 16/1A 0.03.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 5) 5 801 M.L.Ramesh 16/93 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 6) 6 877 S.Sathappan (Died) 1. Thiru. S.Murugappan Chettiar 16/60 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 7) 7 832 S.Mallika 16/1A 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 8) 8 816 Irudayaraj 16/2A1 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 9) 9 829 R.Ravichandran 16/95 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 10) 12 738 Mr. Ella Raja 1/1A1 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 11) 13 795 Mrs.Godavari 3/2C 0.04.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 12) 14 732 K.Ram Krishnan S/o K.N.Devarajulu 1/1L 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 13) 15 743 Mrs.Catherin Joseph 1/1A4, 1A5 0.04.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 14) 16 811 Mr. M.Gnana Prakasam 1/1A1 0.01.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 15) 19 845 Mr. M.Kuppan (Died) 1. Tmt. Vasantha 2. Mahendran 3. Bhaskar S/o Kuppan 4. M.Gnana Prakasam 1/1A1 0.01.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 15) 19 845 Mr. M.Kuppan (Died) 1. Tmt. Vasantha 2. Mahendran 3. Bhaskar S/o Kuppan 4. K.Bhaskar C/o Udayakumar 2/1A, 1D 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 16) 20 809 Uma Krishnamoorthy 5 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 17) 21 916 C.M.Vasantha 3/2A1 0.04.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 18) 22 751 Raji 5 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 19) 23 868 Thiruvenkatam 5 0.01.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 20) 24 757 Mrs. D.Dhana Lakshmi 20/1N1 0.01.5 8/2000 31.05.2000 21) 25 847 S.Senbakam 1/1A1 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 22) 26 810 1. Tmt. B.Meenakshi (Died) 2. Thiru. Venugopal 3. Thiru. Karthikeyan 39/2A1 A 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 23) 27 820 S.Palani 16/13 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 24) 28 831 J.Sathyanarayanan 16 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 25) 29 719 L.Rajeswar 16/27 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 26) 32 780 Raquia Abubakkar 16/3 0.08.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 27) 33 836 D.Ramya 16/8 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 28) 34 896 Mrs.P.Pushparathi 16/2A1 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 29) 35 909 Smt.M.Alagammal (mentioned as M.Alagammai in the decree) 16/85 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 30) 36 826 K.Raghunathan 16/2A1 0.05.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 31) 37 901 S.P.Meenakshi 16/86 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 32) 38 808 T.Govindammal 18/1,2 0.05.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 33) 39 870 K.Kannan 16/2A1 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 34) 40 835 Mr. T.A.S.Mani 16/2A1 0.03.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 35) 41 882 J.Thirunavukkarasu 16/2A1 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 36) 44 837 Smt. S.Visalakshi 16/59 0.02.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 37) 45 728 1. Tmt. D.Dhanalak­ shmi (Died) 2. Thiru. Balasubra­ maniam 3. Tmt. Deepa Vivekanandan 4. Tmt. Divya Ram­ prasad 16/2A1 0.06.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 38) 46 824 Mrs. Varalakshmi (mentioned in the decree as G.P. Holder Varalakshmi) 32/93 0.02.0 2/2001 03.05.2001 39) 47 797 Mrs.R.Bagayalakshmi 32/110 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 40) 48 723 V.Ramachandran 31/2J2 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 41) 49 790 R.Arumugam 31/2 ‘O’ 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 42) 51 726 V.Srinivasan 32/109 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 43) 52 713 R.Chithra 32/33 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 44) 53 718 Mrs. Subathra K W/o Krishnamurthy 32/77 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 45) 54 782 K.Tharani 18/3A1 P 0.02.5 1/2001 24.04.2001 46) 55 722 1. Mr. V.Krishna­ murthy (Died) 2. Tmt. Uma­ parvathy 3. Thiru. Sai Bala­ ji 32/91 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 47) 56 725 S.Mahadevan 32/97 0.02.0 2/2001 03.05.2001 48) 57 Mrs. B.Jayalakshmi 32/3 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 49) 58 712 B.Chandraseakaran 32/2 ‘O’ 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 50) 59 744 C.Kamala 32/114 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 51) 62 777 Mrs.S.Uma 32/96 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 52) 63 821 V.Thangam 31/2J3 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 53) 64 741 1. Tmt. B.Jayalakshmi 32/3 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 49) 58 712 B.Chandraseakaran 32/2 ‘O’ 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 50) 59 744 C.Kamala 32/114 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 51) 62 777 Mrs.S.Uma 32/96 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 52) 63 821 V.Thangam 31/2J3 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 53) 64 741 1. Tmt. T. Kamala (Died) 2. Thiru. Marimuthu 3. Tmt. Rajeshwari 4. Tmt. Samundeeswari 31/15 0.02.0 2/2001 03.05.2001 54) 65 739 Mrs.Tamizharasi 31/11 0.02.0 2/2001 03.05.2001 55) 66 812 V.Balasubramaniam 32/90 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 56) 67 851 T.A.T.Saroja 37/1A 0.02.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 57) 68 784 Mr. V.Shanmugam 38/3B 0.43.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 58) 69 828 Mr. M.Anthony Swamy 39/9 0.03.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 59) 70 792 S.Porkodi 38/7C 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 60) 71 800 M.Viswanathan 39/1A1 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 61) 74 867 D.Dharani Bai 38/7C 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 62) 75 747 V.Naneetha Krishnan 38/2, 3A 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 63) 76 852 Arokiyamary 39/2G 0.02.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 64) 77 918 Tmt. Devendramse­ shammal (Died) 1. Thiru. T.A.Sun­ daram 2. Tmt. Saroja 37/1A 0.02.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 65) 80 889 Smt.Andalammal 9/1A 0.02.5 4/2000 28.02.2000 66) 81 834 Smt.Gnanambal 9/1B 0.08.5 4/2000 28.02.2000 67) 86 785 R.Kumar 38/1B1 0.02.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 68) 87 897 Mr.G.Shankara Narayanan 38/2, 3A 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 69) 88 814 S.Devaraj 38/5B, 38/6 0.49.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 70) 89 822 G.R.Radhakrishnan 38/3A 0.01.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 71) 90 742 Mr.B.Venkataramani 38/3A 0.01.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 72) 93 737 Shamundeswari 38/1B1 0.02.0 7/2000 15.03.2000 73) 94 756 1. Mr. R.Padmanaban (Died) 2.Tmt. Mr. R.Padmanaban (Died) 2.Tmt. Syamala 37/1A 0.02.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 74) 95 850 K.Hansa Kishore 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 75) 98 711 D.Uttam Chand 6/1A 0.02.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 76) 99 878 Vijayarajachal Chand 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 77) 100 A.Goutham Chand 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 78) 103 735 P.Rajendra Kumar 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 79) 104 776 Mr.P.V.Sridhar 6/1 0.02.0 5/2000 29.06.2000 80) 105 794 R.Indra Devi 6/1 0.05.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 81) 106 765 K.Tej Raj Jain 6/1 0.04.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 82) 108 772 C.Ramakrishnan 6/1 0.02.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 83) 109 771 P.Sunil Kumar 6/1 0.03.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 84) 110 775 D.Ramesh Chand 6/1 0.02.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 85) 111 768 P.Mahendra Kumar 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 86) 112 787 P.Ramesh Kumar 6/1 2275 sq.ft 5/2000 10.04.2000 87) 113 791 Smt.Pani Devi 6/1 0.05.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 88) 114 842 A.Abdul Rawoof 22/2A1 0.03.0 8/2000 31.08.2000 89) 118 854 Mr.A.Venkata Raman 22/7 0.01.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 90) 119 716 M.Subramanian 22/6B3 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 91) 120 752 J.Velumurugan 19/1A1 B 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 92) 121 750 Mrs.Sumathi Madhava Rao 19/1J, 20/1C 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 93) 124 863 K.Balasubramanian 22/4A1 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 94) 126 729 Mrs.Daisy 22/6B2 0.02.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 95) 127 895 V.Ranganathan 20/1E 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 96) 129 900 Mrs.V.Rukku 19/11F 0.04.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 97) 131 761 R.Visneswara Rao 22/4A1 0.02.0 8/2000 31.08.2000 98) 132 769 1. Varalakshmi 2. Sampurnam 19/1A11 0.01.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 99) 133 881 Mr. Gopal 22/4 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 100) 138 799 Mr. Varalakshmi 2. Sampurnam 19/1A11 0.01.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 99) 133 881 Mr. Gopal 22/4 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 100) 138 799 Mr. Mohammed Fezludin 22/2 0.03.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 101) 139 813 P.V.Ranganathan 22/7 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 102) 140 857 K.Venugopal 22/4A1 0.02.0 8/2000 31.08.2000 103) 145 849 Rajagopal 20/1R 0.06.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 104) 146 830 Anitha Rajendran 20/1G 22/2A2 0.02.0 0.02.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 105) 153 724 J.Shanthi w/o A.Jayaraman 22/4A1 0.02.5 8/2000 31.08.2000 106) 156 858 G.M.Manoharan 22/7 0.01.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 107) 157 770 Jothilingam 18/3A1 A1A 0.02.5 1/2000 24.04.2001 108) 159 806 P.Pangan 22/4A1 0.02.0 8/2000 31.08.2000 109) 162 860 S.Jayanthi 22/6B1 0.03.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 110) 163 866 S.Mythili 22/7 0.04.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 111) 164 869 Vinodh Rajendran 20/1H 0.04.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 112) 166 883 L.Ashok Kumar 20/21 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 113) 168 819 P.Gunasekaran 19/16A 0.03.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 114) 169 734 P.A.Vedanarayanan 19/1C 0.03.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 115) 170 874 Ganagadaran Nair 20/1B 0.06.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 116) 176 856 S.Rajeswari 22/7 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 117) 177 839 R.Vijayakumar 1 /4 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 118) 178 846 R.Alamelu 1/17 0.06.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 119) 180 841 Lakshmi Chandrasekaran 1/19 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 120) 181 715 D.Baskaran 3/2T 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 121) 186 815 Mr.Karthikeyan 23/4 0.02.5 3/2001 14.12.2001 122) 188 721 Mr.Subarayan 23/4 0.01.5 3/2001 14.12.2001 123) 189 827 Girija Nair 23/2B 0.03.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 124) 191 825 S.P.Malarani 23/11B 0.02.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 125) 197 804 K.Pandian 23/6A 0.02.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 126) 201 773 Mrs.Thilagavathi 23/3A 0.04.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 127) 203 880 A.Balakrishnan 23/9D 0.03.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 128) 205 733 Mrs.Anuratha 23/6A 0.04.5 3/2001 14.12.2001 129) 208 898 M.Rajeswari 449/2A10.02.0 1/2001 24.04.2001 130) 213 736 P.Iyyappan 16/2 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 131) 214 805 Mrs.Rajeswari 33/8B11 0.03.0 9/2000 06.09.2000 132) 215 781 Selvaraj 33/8B8 0.03.0 9/2000 06.09.2000 133) 216 902 S.Ramaraju D 3 33/8A1 3/6C 0.01.0 0.00.5 9/2000 06.09.2000 134) 218 855 A.Seethalakshmi 1/10 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 135) 219 786 Jayalakshmi 1/2 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 136) 220 875 S.Sekar 1/1A1 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 137) 221 853 1. Thiru. K.Jagan­ nathan (Died) 2. Tmt. Vatchala 3. Tmt. Sowmya 4. Tmt. Bhu­ vaneswari 1/1J 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 138) 223 807 Mrs.P.R.Meenalochani 3/2B 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 139) 226 788 P.B.Suganya 1/1k 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 140) 228 Mrs.Parvathi 1/5 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 141) 229 764 Mrs.Vimala Subramani 1/1A8 1/23 0.04.0 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 142) 233 864 1. Thiru. P.V.Sahade­ van (Died) 2. Tmt. Santha 3. Tmt. Priya 4. Tmt. Sowmya 4. Tmt. Bhu­ vaneswari 1/1J 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 138) 223 807 Mrs.P.R.Meenalochani 3/2B 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 139) 226 788 P.B.Suganya 1/1k 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 140) 228 Mrs.Parvathi 1/5 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 141) 229 764 Mrs.Vimala Subramani 1/1A8 1/23 0.04.0 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 142) 233 864 1. Thiru. P.V.Sahade­ van (Died) 2. Tmt. Santha 3. Tmt. Priya 4. Tmt. Praveena 1/1A1 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 143) 235 861 Balagurunathan 38/2 38/3A 0.01.5 0.01.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 144) 238 789 V.Rukmani 38/2 38/3A 0.01.5 0.00.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 145) 239 803 Alangara Marry 39/9 ‘O’ 0.02.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 146) 240 838 Tmt. T.T.Vaidehi (Died) 1. Thiru. Durai Rajan 2. Thiru. Durai Vi­ jayan 3. Thiru. Durai Sunil 1/1S 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 147) 241 818 M.B.Krishnamurthy 1/8 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 148) 242 717 V.Sriram 1/21 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 149) 243 840 Usha Chandrasekaran 1/1E 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 150) 244 767 Mr.Venkatesan 1/1D 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 151) 246 779 Vasanthi 39/1A, 38/10B 0.44.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 152) 247 720 Chandra 37/1, 2, 4 0.02.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 153) 248 758 S.Tamil Arasi 38/7D, 38/7E 0.20.0 0.12.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 154) 249 865 K.Rajan (mentioned as K.Rajam in the decree) 39/1A1 0.02.0 7/2000 15.03.2000 155) 250 745 Ramachandran 39/9Q 0.01.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 156) 252 823 1.S.R.Lakshmi & 2.Mrs.Eswaran Hema 38/7F 0.10.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 157) 254 778 V.N.Chella Pillai 39/10, 11, 9 0.02.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 158) 255 748 G.Rani 1/11 0.04.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 159) 256 730 V.Chandra 1/20 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 160) 257 793 1. T.R.Krishnamurthy (Died) 2. Tmt. Varalakshmi 3. Thiru. Ramkumar 4. Tmt. Rajalakshmi 1/14 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 161) 259 891 1. R.Srinivasan (Died) 2. Tmt. Mangalam 3. Tmt. Lakshmi­ mani 4. Tmt. Bhuvana 5. Tmt. Rajam 1/9 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 162) 260 844 Mrs.Manimegalai 1/7 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 163) 263 873 Mrs.Lalitha Sivakumar 1/12 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 164) 264 872 Mrs.Parimala Chidambaram 1/6 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 165) 265 763 Chitti Angel Francess 3/2 3275 sq.ft 4/2001 07.02.2002 166) 266 759 Mrs.Rani Mugunthan 1/3 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 167) 267 755 Mr. Tmt. Bhuvana 5. Tmt. Rajam 1/9 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 162) 260 844 Mrs.Manimegalai 1/7 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 163) 263 873 Mrs.Lalitha Sivakumar 1/12 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 164) 264 872 Mrs.Parimala Chidambaram 1/6 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 165) 265 763 Chitti Angel Francess 3/2 3275 sq.ft 4/2001 07.02.2002 166) 266 759 Mrs.Rani Mugunthan 1/3 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 167) 267 755 Mr. Sowmithran 1/13 0.06.5 4/2001 07.02.2002 168) 268 760 A.K.Varadarajan 1/1C 0.04.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 169) 269 796 Bama 1/1A14 0.04.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 170) 270 892 N.Padmaja 1/1A1 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 171) 271 859 B.B.Rani 31/2C 0.02.0 2/2001 03.05.2001 172) 274 833 R.Lalitha 31/13, 22D, 32/77F 0.05.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 173) 283 749 T.V.Bagyam 32/61 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 174) 290 893 J.Suresh 1/15 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 175) 291 Mrs.Jayalakshmi 32/77M 0.01.5 2/2001 03.05.2001 176) 293 746 Mrs. J.Dilli 22/4 1950 sq.ft 8/2000 31.08.2000 177) 294 Mrs. J.Vinotha Raj 1/3 2047 sq.ft 4/2001 07.02.2002 178) 296 899 P.Gunasekaran 19/16A, 17C 0.03.0 8/2000 31.08.2000 179) 299 894 Mrs.N.Janaki 1/25 0.04.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 180) 301 848 Mrs.Rajeswari W/o V.R.S.Mani 5 0.02.0 4/2001 07.02.2002 181) 302 843 B.Baskar 32/2J2 1800 sq.ft 2/2001 03.05.2001 182) 303 879 Mrs.Rukmani Parthasarathy 37/1A 37/2 0.03.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 183) 305 783 Mrs.Saroja Ra­ masamy 39/1A1 0.02.5 7/2000 15.03.2000 184) 308 862 Mrs.Sarojini Chel­ lappan 9/1A 0.07.0 4/2000 28.02.2000 185) 309 762 Veerabathran 6/1 0.02.5 5/2000 10.04.2000 186) 310 817 D.Sriram (mentioned as D.Sairam in the decree) 25/5A1 A 0.02.5 3/2001 14.12.2001 187) 311 798 1. Thiru. R.Babu (Died) 2. Tmt. R.Rajeswari 18/3A1 H 0.05.0 1/2000 24.04.2000 188) 313 766 Jaganathan 38 1800 sq.ft 7/2000 15.12.2000 189) 314 714 God Frey & Peter Seelam 1/1I 2145 sq.ft 4/2001 07.02.2002 190) 315 754 1. Vasantha Natarajan (Died) 2. Thiru. T.N.Raghu 3. Thiru. T.N.Padri 4. Tmt. Sumathi Sivakumar 16/2A1 0.46.3 6/2000 20.04.2000 191) 317 727 Mrs. Karpagam 39/96F, 2 1830 7/2000 15.12.2000 192) 320 731 Rajalakshmi Venkatesan 16/2A1 0.02.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 193) 515 774 Revathy 39/9M 0.02.0 7/2000 15.03.2000 LAOP AS 2008 2023 1. 30 567 D.Padmapriya 16/11 0.04.5 6/2000 20.04.2000 2. 31 557 Ramathilagam 16/39, 40 0.05.0 6/2000 20.04.2000 3. 83 562 Mrs.Gopal Rao 38/1B1 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 4. 85 568 Smt.Girija 39/9K 0.01.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 5. 102 556 D.Rajesh Kumar 6/1 0.03.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 6. 107 564 K.Madhavan (Died) 1. Tmt.A.Swarnalak­ shmi 6/1 0.02.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 7. 136 560 A.Francina* 20/1I 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 8. 171 566 1.Mrs.Mangalam 2.Kanaga 19/1A9 0.01.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 9. 83 562 Mrs.Gopal Rao 38/1B1 0.02.0 7/2000 22.05.2000 4. 85 568 Smt.Girija 39/9K 0.01.5 7/2000 22.05.2000 5. 102 556 D.Rajesh Kumar 6/1 0.03.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 6. 107 564 K.Madhavan (Died) 1. Tmt.A.Swarnalak­ shmi 6/1 0.02.0 5/2000 10.04.2000 7. 136 560 A.Francina* 20/1I 0.02.0 8/2000 03.07.2000 8. 171 566 1.Mrs.Mangalam 2.Kanaga 19/1A9 0.01.5 8/2000 03.07.2000 9. 173 558 S.Sakthivel 22/4A1 0.02.0 8/2000 03.08.2000 10. 187 561 N.Vijaya 23/4 0.02.5 3/2001 14.12.2001 11. 200 563 K.Vasantha 23/6A 0.02.0 3/2001 14.12.2001 12. 210 559 Helan Shanthini 18/1 0.02.5 1/2001 24.04.2001 *Amended as per order dated 07.02.2025 made in C.M.P.No.26313 of 2023. 5. The Referring Officer opposed the claim petitions stating that the awards were passed strictly in accordance with law. The counter affidavit filed by the LAO was adopted by the requisitioning body. The LAO inter alia contended in his counter that the awards were passed considering the various aspects and features of the lands acquired that were projected by the claimants. The public interest outweighs the private interest. Since the compensation for the acquired lands was fixed on the existing statistics, the claim of land owners that the value of the acquired lands should be above the value determined by the LAO is incorrect and untenable. 6. Since the issue was common and the awards relate to one single village, the Reference Court had proceeded to try all the claim petitions jointly and recorded common evidence. Accordingly, during enquiry, common evidence was recorded in L.A.O.P.No.192 of 2008. During enquiry, on the side of the claimant(s), one Nandhagopal, the sole claimant in L.A.O.P.192 of 2008 was examined as C.W.1 and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.8 were marked while, on the side of the LAO and Requisition Body, Tmt.Thenmozhi, Special Tahsildar (LA) was examined as R.W.1, however, no document was marked on the side of the LAO and Requisitioning Body. 7. Upon considering both oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, more particularly, Ex.C.7, a sale deed executed by Masthan in favour of Sah Mohammed dated 08.07.1997, and Ex.C.8, a sale deed executed by Porkodi in favour of Vinolia Swamidass, the reference court, by its common order dated 30.09.2021, enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,754/- per cent from Rs.300/- per cent as fixed by the LAO. Though the reference court had to hold that the market value of the land in the locality was at Rs.5,943/- per cent, for the acquired lands, after making a deduction of 20% towards development charges, the reference court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,754/- per cent. Challenging the enhancement of compensation made by the reference court by common judgement dated 30.09.2021 in L.A.O.P.No.192 of 2008 and batch of cases, the LAO has come up with the present appeal suits. 8. Heard both sides. 9.1 The law officers appearing on behalf of the respective appellants would submit that the LAO had, himself, taken into account a number of sale deeds, about 485 different sale transactions that had taken place in a period of three years immediately preceding the date of the 4(1) notification, of which 326 sale transactions were rejected by the LAO, finding those transfers relate to housing sites, and the LAO had taken note of a sale transaction dated 08.11.1996, which related to the transfer of agricultural land, and based on such sale deed, the LAO determined the market value for the acquired land at Rs.300/- per cent. However, the reference court, going by the house site value, fixed the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants to be of Rs.4,754/- after giving a deduction towards development charges at 20%. 9.2 The learned law officers appearing on behalf of the LAO would, in support of their contention that the market value determined by the reference court based on the sale instances, which were in respect of individual plots of land being much smaller in comparison to the land acquired in Panapakkam village and for the deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges, placed much reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Premlata and others [ (2022) 7 SCC 745 ] 10. The learned standing counsel appearing for the requisitioning body sailing with the State/LAO would vehemently contend that the market value determined by the reference court for the acquired lands, which are the subject matter in the present appeal suits, was not based on any comparable sale instances and therefore, the same requires interference at the hands of this court. 11. The learned standing counsel appearing for the requisitioning body sailing with the State/LAO would vehemently contend that the market value determined by the reference court for the acquired lands, which are the subject matter in the present appeal suits, was not based on any comparable sale instances and therefore, the same requires interference at the hands of this court. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant(s) would submit that Oragadam village is a developed area which is on the peripheries of the City of Chennai and the compensation based on the market value arrived at by the reference court cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive and the Supreme Court of India has been consistently held that the highest value among the exemplar sales must be taken into account in determining the market value for the acquired land. 12.The learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning body would on the other hand sailing with the LAO submit that the enhancement of the market value by the reference court was not in tune with the provisions of the LA Act, 1894 and the subject lands are situated far away from the City of Chennai. 13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the available records carefully. 14. Now, the only point that arises for consideration in these appeal suits is as follows: Whether the common order under appeal(s) enhancing the compensation awarded by the LAO was without any evidence and material? 15. The fact that a large parcel of land was acquired in Orgadam village for the development of industrial park is not in dispute and the subject lands were acquired invoking the emergency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894. After dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act, 1894, a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act, 1894 was issued between 18.06.1998 and 11.02.2000. 16. It is relevant to note, as a test case, that the LAO took into consideration around 269 sale transactions that had taken place in Oragadam village itself in a period of 3 years immediately preceding the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894, of which he rejected 248 sale transactions on the ground that they relate to house sites. The LAO had considered only a transfer of agricultural land by sale deed dated 08.11.1996. 17. The LAO had considered only a transfer of agricultural land by sale deed dated 08.11.1996. 17. It is relevant to note that before the reference court, Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.8 were filed. The reference court considered Ex.C.7, sale deed dated 08.07.1997 and Ex.C.8, sale deed dated 09.07.1997. The Notifications under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894 in the instant cases were issued on different dates between 01.06.1998 and 28.04.2000. Thus, the sales under Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8 had taken place much prior to notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, 1894. The reference court based its finding to enhance the compensation from Rs.300/- per cent fixed by the LAO to Rs.5,943/- per cent upon considering the sale deeds Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8. The reference court, however, having taken note of the fact that only a small extent of land was acquired from each of the claimants in many cases, applied 20% deduction from the market value towards development charges on the market value so determined by it for the acquired land. Accordingly, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.4,754/- per cent. 18. In a similar matter, wherein also the land situated in Oragadam village was acquired for the industrial development purposes [ The Special Tahsildar v. Mahaveer Chand Bora - A.S.No.397 of 2015 judgement dated 10.09.2015] a Division Bench of this court has held that the land acquired formed part of urban agglomeration and the village is already developed into an industrial satellite city; if more than 90% of the transactions had taken place in the very same village in a three year period immediately preceding the date of the notification under Section 4(1), it is not permissible for the land acquisition officer to reject all those sale deeds on the ground that they related to the sale of house sites. It would be relevant to extract hereunder the relevant paragraphs of the judgement which read as follows:- “9. The Tribunal found that under Ex.C.1 - the sale deed dated 30.1.1997, the land of an extent of 2,400 sq.ft., was sold for Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, rate indicated was Rs.4,363/- per cent. Under Ex.C.2, the land together with a shop measuring an extent of 3099 sq.ft., was sold for Rs.43,864/-, which worked out to Rs.6,178/- per cent. Under Ex.C.3, a house site measuring an extent of 2,400 sq.ft was sold for Rs.30,000/- working out to Rs.5,454/- per cent. 10. Therefore, rate indicated was Rs.4,363/- per cent. Under Ex.C.2, the land together with a shop measuring an extent of 3099 sq.ft., was sold for Rs.43,864/-, which worked out to Rs.6,178/- per cent. Under Ex.C.3, a house site measuring an extent of 2,400 sq.ft was sold for Rs.30,000/- working out to Rs.5,454/- per cent. 10. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court that out of the exemplar sales, the sale deed, which indicates the highest rate, is to be taken into account, the Tribunal took Ex.C.3 as the indicator after rejecting Ex.C.2, as it related to the sale of a site with a building. On this amount of Rs.5,454/- per cent, the Tribunal allowed deduction of 30% and fixed the compensation at Rs.3,820/- per cent. 11. We do not find anything wrong with the reasoning given by the Tribunal. The Land Acquisition Officer himself took note of the fact that out of 485 sale transactions that had taken place in a period of three years preceding the Notification under Section 4(1), 344 related to sale of lands in the very same village namely Oragadam. Out of these 344 transactions, 326 admittedly related to house sites. 12. Oragadam Village is actually on the peripheries of the city of Chennai. It forms part of the urban agglomeration. The village has already developed into an industrial satellite city. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rate indicated in the sale of house sites cannot be ignored. If more than 90% of the transactions had taken place in the very same village during the period immediately preceding the date of the notification under Section 4(1), it is not permissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to reject all those sale deeds on the ground that they related to the sale of house sites. In view of the above, we find that the award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.” 19. In the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water Supply Project-III, Tiruvallur v. Rathina Reddi (2003) 1 MLJ 781 , a Division Bench of this Court relying upon the earlier judgement, reiterated the position of law that the land owner would be entitled to the compensation fixed on the basis of the exemplar sale deed which reflects the highest value. 20. 20. This court has also seen that the LAO had fixed the compensation selectively by relying upon the value indicated in the sale deed in respect of the sale of agricultural land and rejected 248 sale transactions that relate to house sites. This strategy adopted by the LAO, in the view of this court, was solely to minimise compensation to the greatest extent feasible. As already discussed supra, in a case of similarly placed land owner of Oragadam village, the market value fixed by the LAO at Rs.300/- per cent was enhanced by the reference court in L.A.O.P.No.1217 of 2008 to Rs.5,454/- per cent but after giving a deduction of 30% towards development charges, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.3,820/- per cent. That was taken on appeal by the LAO and the Division Bench of this Court by its judgement dated 10.09.2015 dismissed the appeal. 21. It is relevant to note that Oragadam village is actually on the peripheries of the City of Chennai and forms part of the urban agglomeration. The village has already developed into an industrial satellite city. 22. Be that as it may, earlier when the lands in the very same village were acquired for the same industrial development scheme at the instance of the requisitioning body herein, the enhancement of compensation granted by the reference court had already been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, the State cannot now take a different stand. 23. Further, it is also to be taken note of that when a person is deprived of his land, which was the source of his livelihood, he must be compensated adequately by way of just and fair compensation. “Just” compensation means fair market value. The person from whom the land was acquired must be compensated for sustenance of their livelihood. If the lands were not acquired, the landowner would have certainly made many improvements on the lands, and even if the land is kept as it is as agricultural land, just by rearing the cattle, one can easily make their livelihood. 24. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a citizen, is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. 24. The State, being eminent domain while depriving a property from a citizen, is obligated to compensate such a person adequately. Merely because the LAO had fixed a minimum compensation ignoring all the sale transactions, which would be beneficial to the landowners to suit his convenience, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the LAO was just and reasonable. The reference court, out of the exemplar sales, took into consideration the sale transactions under Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.8, which indicated the value of the property transferred as Rs.5,942.68 rounded up to Rs.5,943/- per cent and enhanced the compensation fixed by the LAO from Rs.300/- per cent to Rs.4,754/- per cent after giving a deduction of 20% towards development charges. This, in the considered view of this court, appears to be just and fair compensation and based on proper consideration. Thus, the common judgement impugned in the appeal suits does not require any interference at the hands of this court. 25. At this juncture, the learned law officers appearing on behalf of the respective appellants would bring to the notice of this court a judgement in the case of The Special Tahsildar v. Mahaveer Chand Bora (cited supra), wherein a Division Bench of this Court, in the appeal at the instance of the LAO challenging the enhancement of compensation, had upheld the deduction of 30% towards development charges and therefore, they urged this court at least to enhance the quantum of deduction towards development charges from 20% to 30%. 26. In reply to the above, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would further contend that though the said sale deeds relied upon by the reference court are in respect of the transactions of small plots, those could be used as comparable sale instances, as the land under acquisition is located in a developed area. No deduction towards development was essential. Therefore, according to learned Counsel, the Reference Court ought to have granted compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.5,943/- and deduction of 20% towards development charges ought not have been made by the reference court. 27. No deduction towards development was essential. Therefore, according to learned Counsel, the Reference Court ought to have granted compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.5,943/- and deduction of 20% towards development charges ought not have been made by the reference court. 27. In the case of The Special Tahsildar (LA) Unit – IV, Outer Ring Road Project, CMDA, Koyambedu, Chennai v. J.Jayaraman and another (A.S.Nos.423 to 425, 429 to 434 of 2021 judgement dated 11.07.2023), a Division Bench of this Court relied upon the Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa [ (2007) 9 SCC 447 ] has held that no developmental charges need be deducted in a project where laying of railways and roads are undertaken. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows:- “10. In Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, [ 2007 (9) SCC 447 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no developmental charges need be deducted in a project where laying of railways and roads are undertaken. In this very ORR project, a Division Bench of this Court in The Special Thasildhar, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road Project, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai -8 -Vs- Palin Reshma Jacob & others, judgement dated 31-08-2015 made in A.S.Nos:574 to 583 of 2011 (Batch) had held that no deduction should be made, since the purpose of acquisition is for laying a road and in all these cases, only smaller extents have been acquired from all the land owners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 269 and 270 of 2023 by order dated 10-01-2023 had confirmed the view of the Division Bench of this court referred to supra. Therefore, the deduction of 20% made by the Reference Court cannot be sustained.” In Nelson Fernandes 's case cited supra the acquisition of lands was for the purpose of laying a railway line and therefore, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no deduction towards development charges could be made. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes's case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 28. Therefore, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes's case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 28. In the case of C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) v. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer , (2009) 11 SCC 75 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases where the acquisition is for setting up of industries or setting up of housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled to deduct some amount from the payable compensation on account of development charges, however, it has to be established by positive evidence that such development charges are justified. At para 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “ 13. It is true that where the lands are acquired for public purpose like setting up of industries or setting up of housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled to deduct some amount from the payable compensation on account of development charges, however, it has to be established by positive evidence that such development charges are justified. The evidence must come for the need of the development contemplated and the possible expenditure for such development. We do not find any such discussion in the order of the High Court.” 29. In the case of Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as follows:- 7. It is not debated that the sale transaction covered by Ext. P-7 relates to a small plot and the land in question acquired is about 84 acres. This land comprising of a large area is not developed although it has potential value for residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land, roads were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be earmarked for other civic amenities. This land comprising of a large area is not developed although it has potential value for residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land, roads were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be earmarked for other civic amenities. Thus, after leaving the area in the land required for the purposes mentioned above, plots were to be made for residential and commercial purposes by incurring expenditure for other developmental works, such as providing electricity, water etc. The acquired land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. ” 30. In the case of Union of India v. Premlata and others [(2022) 7 SCC 745] upon which much reliance was placed by both the learned law officers for the LAO and the learned standing counsel for the requisitioning body, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon its judgement in the case of Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar v. Sub-Divisional Officer [ (1996) 7 SCC 554 ] has held that the courts may determine the compensation on square foot basis on case to case basis, if there are no other sale instances available, however, subject to a reasonable deduction towards development charges. 31. Thus, there is no straight-jacket formula for the deduction of development charges and it is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the development charges. 32. 31. Thus, there is no straight-jacket formula for the deduction of development charges and it is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the development charges. 32. In the instant cases, a vast extent of agricultural land which was already converted into house sites are the subject matter of land acquisition. Admittedly, house sites were acquired for the purpose of setting up an industrial development complex, and the lands under acquisition not only had potential value but were also developed and situated in the developed area. The adjacent areas were also already developed. Neither the LAO nor the Requisitioning Body did establish the need for development contemplated and the possible expenditure of such development by producing positive evidence to show that such development charges were justifiable. Yet, none of the claimants is found to be aggrieved by either the deduction of development charges or the quantum thereof because there was no appeal or cross appeal from them against the deduction of development charges, and therefore, this court does not want to go into the issue of the deduction of development charges. Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of the LAO as well as the requisitioning body in this regard shall stand rejected, and this court does not find any error in the deduction of 20% applied by the reference court towards development charges and the same shall stand confirmed. 33. For the foregoing discussion, this court finds that the common award passed by the reference court does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. The appeal suits fail and they are liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the appeal suits are dismissed. The common order and decree(s) of the reference court are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. The Law Officers will be entitled to separate fee for each appeal.