Kalimuthu v. The Land Acquisition Officer and

ORDER XLI RULE 27

APPLICATION

¶15Heard on either side. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application.

¶16As rightly pointed out by Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel, the Sale Deed dated April 11, 1985 which is the petition mentioned Document No.1, is in respect of 1344 sq. ft. land in Survey No.239 situate in Lathuvadi Village. The land was sold along with the superstructure / tiled house thereon for a consideration of Rs.12,500/-. As it is not possible to easily find out the discrete value of land and that of the house constructed thereupon, the petition mentioned Document No.1 cannot be relied upon. As it would not help, it need not be received. As far as petitioner mentioned Document No.2 is concerned, it is needless to mention that a Gift Settlement Deed is executed out of love and affection. Hence, it will not reflect the true market value. Furthermore, the subject land in the petition mentioned Document No.2 is in a different village Page No.19 of 42 namely Surampatti Village. Therefore, the petition mentioned Document No.2 also cannot be taken into consideration. Petition mentioned Document Nos.3 and 4 are already available on record and there is no need to receive them again. Hence, this Court is of the view that the additional documents that are sought to be received are not relevant. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P. No.1123 of 2026 in A.S. No.4 of 2017 is dismissed. ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPEAL SUITS

¶17With regard to the Appeal Suits, Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the lands acquired for the purpose of the Veterinary Medical College and Research Centre possessed an inherent potential value for conversion into housing sites at the time of acquisition. The claimants' lands are situate near Namakkal to Mohanur Highway, have multiple schools and also one Government college (within 890 meters) in the surrounding. Further, the claimants' lands are situate within 8 Kms from the district headquarters. The same is evident from Lathuvadi Village Map available on record.

17.1. He would further submit that the exemplar Sale Deed selected by the L.A.O. cannot be the sole basis for determining fair compensation. Page No.20 of 42 All the relevant Sale Deeds must be considered holistically along with the inherent and other features of the claimants' land for determining a fair compensation. Out of the 73 Sale Deeds referred to in the sales statistics, 25 sale transactions took place in Natham and are situate in and around the acquired property. This demonstrates that the acquired land has clear potential for development as residential plots at the time of acquisition. He would contend that the L.A.O. as well as the Reference Court completely failed to take these vital factors into consideration while determining the quantum of compensation.

17.2. Further, the L.A.O. while sending the list of sales statistics, ought to have forwarded it along with the copies of the specific Sale Deeds referenced therein. Though the L.A.O. failed to do so, the sales statistics contains specific details of all the sale transactions like extent, location, survey number, executant, sale consideration, etc., and hence, the same can be safely relied upon. While the Reference Court rightly relied upon the Sale Deed in Serial No.3, it however, improperly considered only 1/10th of the transaction value citing deduction towards development charges. A resonable deduction is permissible while comparing the Sale Deed in Serial No.3 and the claimants' land as Serial No.3 is a house site, however, the Reference Court is not at all right in deducting developmental charges Page No.21 of 42 from the claimants, that too at a huge rate. The approach of the Reference Court in deducting 9/10 of the value is fundamentally erroneous and is entirely inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The claimants have been severely prejudiced by way of the aforesaid acquisition. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Appeal Suits and grant an enhanced compensation to the claimants by fixing not less than Rs.100/- per sq. ft.

17.3. In support of his arguments, he would rely upon the following Judgments: (i) Chimanlal Hargovinddas -vs-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751; (ii) Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation -vs-Vincent Daniel reported in (2025) 7 SCC 798; (iii) Bhagwathula Samanna -vs-Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam reported in (1991) 4 SCC 506; (iv) The Special Tahsildar (LAO) -vs-K.A.Kalil Ahamed reported in A.S.No.676 of 2020 dated January 23, 2026; (v) Jadgish Chandra' -vs-New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Noida reported in 2007 SCC OnLine All 920; (vi) Revenue Divisional Officer -vs-M.Bapaya Reddy reported in MANU/AP/1236/2003. Page No.22 of 42

¶18On the other hand, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the L.A.O. (Appellants in A.S.Nos.4 to 7 of 2017) would invite the attention of this Court to the Order and Decree passed by the Reference Court and submit that the Reference Court is not right in placing major reliance on the Sale Deed mentioned in the list of sales statistics at Serial No.3 for determining compensation. The subject property in the said document in Serial No.3 is a small house property situate in Natham land, whereas the acquired lands of the claimants are large dry agricultural lands. Land covered in the Sale Deed in Serial No.3 is situate far away from the acquired lands. He would contend that the said document does not provide a fair basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the reliance placed on such a document cannot be sustained.

18.1. Moreover, the Reference Court has committed an arithmetical error while computing compensation. As per the document in Serial No.3 that was relied by the Reference Court, 864 sq. ft. of land was sold for Rs.3,400/-. If that be so, the value of 1 Cent would be Rs.1,714/-, and accordingly, the value of 1 Acre would be Rs.1,71,416/-. However, the Reference Court has erroneously calculated the value of 1 Cent as Rs.85,708/- and fixed 1/10th of its value viz., Rs.8,570/- as the rate of compensation per Cent, which is a clear and grave arithmetical error. Such Page No.23 of 42 an error in computation has materially affected the determination of compensation and therefore cannot be sustained.

18.2. He would further submit that the L.A.O.'s exemplar Sale Deed relating to land of Survey Nos.258 to 260 is in respect of an agricultural land situate opposite to the claimants' acquired lands on the other side of the road, as it could be seen from the Village Map. They both are equidistant from the road. When there is a land in close vicinity of similar classification, there is no need to compare with lands having superstructures and house sites. Such lands can only be relied upon when there is no land of similar classification available in the vicinity. Further, no evidence was let in by the claimants to disprove the L.A.O.'s findings. In the said L.A.O.'s exemplar Sale Deed, 1 Acre 64 Cents was sold for Rs.16,000/-, which comes to Rs.9,756/- per Acre. The L.A.O. rightly fixed the same as the rate of compensation.

18.3. Further, without any prejudice to the above arguments, he would submit that an earlier Land Acquisition Original Petition in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000 was disposed of by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Namakkal on June 25, 2022. In the said proceedings, the land acquired was for the very same purpose. In L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000, Page No.24 of 42 the compensation was enhanced to Rs.45,000/- per Acre, based on a Sale Deed dated February 13, 1987 wherein consideration was fixed at Rs.45,000/- per Acre. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, appeals in A.S. Nos.455, 456, 457, 1119 and 1120 of 2022 were preferred. In appeal, the decision of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Namakkal was ultimately confirmed by this Court by a Common Judgment dated November 21, 2016. Learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that the present attempt to re-assess the compensation is unwarranted, as the issue of compensation has already been adjudicated and affirmed in appeal.

18.4. He would further seriously contend that the Original Petitions were filed in the year 1989 and were all later closed in the year 1995 (for reasons stated supra). Thereafter, the Original Petitions were restored nearly after 15 years, in 2009. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim interest for the said default period. He emphasized that once the proceedings stood dismissed, the claimants cannot take advantage of the delay occasioned by their own default, and any restoration after such a long lapse cannot confer entitlement to interest for the intervening / default period. He would submit that the award of interest during the default period may not be granted as the same is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Appeals filed by the L.A.O. and Page No.25 of 42 the beneficiary, and dismiss those filed by the claimants. In support of his arguments, he would rely on the following Judgments: (i).Dhiraj Singh -vs-State of Haryana reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127; (ii).New Okhla Industrial Development Autority -vs-Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599; and (iii). Mala etc -vs-State of Punjab reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 663. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON THE APPEAL SUITS

¶19This Court has considered both sides' submissions and perused the documents available on record.

¶20The L.A.O. collected 73 Sale Deeds which made up the list of sale statistics. Based on the Sale Deed in Serial No.65 thereof, wherein and whereby an extent of 50 Cents in Survey No.57/3 of Lathuvadi Village was sold for a total consideration of Rs.7,500/-, the L.A.O. fixed Rs.15,000/- per Acre for irrigated dry land. For unirrigated dry lands, the L.A.O. chose the Sale Deed in Serial No.33 of the sales statistics, which was executed in respect of an extent of 1 Acre 64 Cents in Survey No.258/4, 259/3 and 260/2 for a sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-, as exemplar Sale Deed and fixed Rs.9,756/- per Acre. Accordingly, the L.A.O. awarded compensation Page No.26 of 42 to the claimants vide three Awards dated July 28, 1988, April 25, 1989 and September 6, 1989.

¶21Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimants sought to refer the Award under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 to Reference Court. Before the Reference Court, one of the claimant namely Kalimuthu was examined as C.W.1 and Exs.C.1 to C.3 were marked on the side of claimants.

¶22As rightly decided by the Reference Court, Exs.C.1 to C.3 were executed much after the issuance of the Section 4(1) Notification, i.e., subsequent to the acquisition of claimants' lands. Ex-C.1 was executed on May 20, 2010. Ex-C.2 was executed on September 19, 2013 and Ex-C.3 on June 8, 2012, whereas in this case, the Section 4 (1) Notification in respect of the claimants' lands were issued in the year 1987. It is also to be noted that Ex-C.3 is a Partition Deed and a partition cannot be considered as a transfer. It is settled law that, in general, any transaction post the Section 4

(1) Notification cannot be considered for determining compensation; it may be considered in some exceptional cases, like when there are no past transactions. In this case, Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.3 are executed much after the Section 4 (1) Notification. Hence, the said Sale Deeds and Partition Deed Page No.27 of 42 in Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.3 which were adduced by the claimants before the Reference Court cannot be taken into consideration for determining compensation. The Reference Court rightly decided not to consider the same. There is no need to interfere with the decision of the Reference Court qua Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.3.

¶23It is settled legal position that a claimant assailing the compensation fixed by the L.A.O., must establish their case for enhanced compensation. This could be done by adducing evidence on their own or by relying on the materials submitted by the L.A.O. along with the reference. In this case, no other document has been marked other than Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.3 before the Reference Court. The fate of the Order XLI Rule 27 Application, whereby the claimants sought to receive and mark some additional evidence, has also been decided as above; it is dismissed.

¶24As far as the sales statistics is concerned, the said document was forwarded by the L.A.O. along with the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894. The L.A.O. has not filed copy of all the Sale Deeds contained in the sales statistics, however specific particulars of each and every Sale Deed like classification of land, its extent, executant, sale price, location, etc., have been mentioned. It is to be noted that the admissibility Page No.28 of 42 and relevancy of each exemplar transaction must be scrutinized carefully, as not all transactions reflected in the sales statistics can be treated as genuine or comparable for the purpose of determining compensation. Only those sale deeds which are proximate in location, nature of land and which represent bona fide transactions, can be relied upon for fixing the market value of the acquired land. This Court is of the view that the Reference Court could have very well relied upon the entries in sales statistics. Upon finding Ex-C.1 to Ex-C.3 unreliable and upon finding no other evidence adduced or endorsed on the side of the claimants, the Reference Court rightly did so.

¶25Out of the 73 Sale Deeds referred to in the sales statistics, 25 sale transactions took place in Natham, which shows that there are numerous residential houses in and around the land acquired from the claimants. This fact fortifies that the land had the potential to be developed as a house site at the time of acquisition. Details of all the Natham sale transactions covered in the sales statistics are set out hereunder: Page No.29 of 42 S. No. Serial Number in the Sales Statistics Survey Number and its Classification Mentioned in Sales Statistics Extent of Land Sold (in Sq. Ft) Value mentioned for the extent in the Sales Statistics (in Rupees) Value per Acre mentioned in the Sale Statistics (in Rupees)

¶1249/2 – Natham 3,400/-1,71,416/-

¶2249/2 – Natham 2,464/-1,71,416/-

¶3249/2 – Natham 3,556/-1,79,031/-

¶4249/2 – Natham 3,700/-1,79,680/-

¶588/2A – Natham 3040 4,560/-65,340/-

¶6219/2 – Natham 8,142/-87,120/-

¶7219/2 – Natham 1,508/-87,120/-

¶8219/2 – Natham 1824 3,500/-83,585/-

¶9219/2 – Natham 1,300/-84,142/-

¶10487/2 – Natham 2850 6,350/-97,054/-

¶11487/2 – Natham 2633 5,066/-87,120/-

¶12239 – Natham 1364 12,584/-4,07,856/-

¶13239 – Natham 1221 2,000/-71,351/-

¶14239 – Natham 1116 2,000/-78,064/-

¶15266/3 – Natham 1364 1,776/-56,717/-

¶1644/1 – Natham 6646 6,646/-43,560/-

¶1744/1 – Natham 1049 2,000/-83,050/-

¶1844/1 – Natham 1049 2,000/-83,050/-

¶19292-Natham 1213 10,000/-3,59,109/-

¶20292 – Natham 4,500/-24,000/-

¶21232 – Natham 1336 1,000/-32,604/-

¶22232 – Natham 1800 5,500/-1,33,100/-

¶23232 – Natham 1397 2,700/-84,188/-

¶24232 – Natham 1598 3,150/-85,866/-

¶25239/2 – Natham 1,750/-82,858/-

¶26Further, the subject lands are situate nearby a Government College and a State Highways. Further, the subject land is situated within 8 Page No.30 of 42 Kms approximately from the district headquarters. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that while fixing compensation, the potential value of the land must also be taken into account. When a land is acquired by the State using its eminent domain / power, it is the state's obligation to provide just compensation to the landowners. In other words, land owners are entitled to claim just compensation based on the prevailing market value in the vicinity as well as its potential. In this case, as alluded supra, the subject lands have the potential to be house sites and hence, compensation must be fixed by comparing it with lands of such parity; if not, with proper house sites or house properties by employing deduction method.

¶27This Court has perused the Village map. From its perusal, it can be discerned that the land in Survey No.249/2 is abutting the State Highways. Further, the said property is situated in a well-defined residential area i.e., Natham land. Hence, the said land was sold for Rs.1,714/- per cent, i.e., Rs.1,71,416/- per acre. It is 6 Kms away from the district headquarters (closer than the claimants' lands). Page No.31 of 42

27.1. Serial No.9 in sales statistics, which pertains to an extent of 3040 sq. ft. in Natham Survey No.88/2A, shows that it was sold for Rs.4,560/-, which means it was sold at the rate of Rs.65,340/- per Acre.

27.2. Natham Survey No.219/2 is found in Serial Nos.12, 38, 54 and 63 of sales statistics. It is situated abutting the road. Market value of the lands in Survey No.219/2 ranges from Rs.83,585/- to Rs.87,120/- per Acre.

27.3. Natham Survey No.487/2 found in Serial Nos.20 & 21 of sales statistics, is situated far away from the acquired land. Hence, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

27.4. In Serial Nos.30, 52, 53 and 56 of the sales statistics pertains to Natham Survey No.239. It is situate abutting a road junction. The market value of the lands in Survey No.239 ranges from Rs.71,351/- to Rs.82,858/- per Acre.

27.5. An extent of 1364 sq. ft. in Survey No.266/3, recorded in Serial No.31 in the list of sale statistics, was sold for Rs.1,776/-, which would be Rs.56,717/- per Acre. Page No.32 of 42

27.6. Survey No.44 mentioned in Serial Nos.39, 45 and 50 is far away from the acquired lands and is in a well-defined layout abutting the main road. Its market value is ranging from Rs.43,560/- to Rs.83,050/- per Acre.

27.7. Survey No.292 is shown in Serial Nos.41 and 48 of the sale statistics and its market value ranges from Rs.24,000/- to Rs.3,59,109/-. The L.A.O. rejected the said land as the same was sold for a higher price by boosting its value.

27.8. Survey No.232 mentioned in Serial Nos.43, 55, 59 and 64 is situate surrounding a road junction. The market value of the lands in that survey number ranges from Rs.32, 604/- to Rs.1,33,100/- per Acre.

¶28In the sales statistics, most of the lands mentioned therein are situate abutting roads and are mostly in a well-defined layout. Hence, the market value for the said lands ranges from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/- per Acre. The subject land is not abutting Highways but has an approach road from the State Highways. Taking all these factors into consideration, also considering the potential and the facilities available to the subject land, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.75,000/- per Acre would be a fair market price as on the date of acquisition, provided that it has a well-Page No.33 of 42 defined layout. Since the subject land does not lie in a well-defined layout, a 33.33% standard deduction is to be made towards development of road, parks, and other facilities of a well defined layout. With the standard deduction, the market value of the subject land at the time of acquisition would be Rs.50,000/- per Acre, i.e., Rs.500/- per Cent. Moreover, Mr.Sengodan and Mr.Palani Gounder, the claimants in L.A.O.P. Nos.23 and 25 of 1990 respectively sent a registered letter to the L.A.O. seeking enhancement of compensation, wherein it has been stated that the market value of lands in and around the subject lands herein, is ranging from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per Acre. Furthermore, in the claim statement, Mr.Kalimuthu, the claimant in L.A.O.P. Nos.152 and 171 of 1989 has stated that, if in case the Reference Court concludes that the acquired land was an agricultural land, the compensation shall be fixed at the maximum sum of Rs.50,000/- per Acre. Accordingly, the claimants claimed a maximum compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

¶29At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the L.A. Act, 1894, brought into force in the year 1997 vide Tamil Nadu Amendment Act No.XVI of 1997, adding Section 25 A to the L.A. Act, 1894, and thereby inserting a provision to the effect that the compensation awarded by the Court shall not exceed the compensation Page No.34 of 42 sought for by the claimant, is a substantial provision of law and therefore, prospective in nature [See Judgment of this Court in Special Tahsildhar -vs-Krishna Water Supply Project, reported in 2000 4 CTC 440]. In the instant case, as the acquisition was made in the year 1988, Section 25 A of the L.A. Act, 1894 will not act as a bar.

¶30It is true that in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000, which dealt with a land acquired for the very same purpose i.e., for construction of Veterinary Hospital and Research Clinic at Namakkal, compensation was fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.45,000/- per Acre, based on a Sale Deed dated February 13, 1987 pertaining to an adjacent land in Survey No.362. It is also true that the same was confirmed by this Court in appeal. The subject land in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000 is situate in Survey No.349/2 which is located closer to the acquired lands of the claimants herein. It is to be noted that the land in Survey No.362 covered under the reference Sale Deed in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000, is adjacent to the subject land herein. Nonetheless, the said reference Sale Deed in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000 does not reflect the market value; only the Government value of the land, meaning its guideline value, is shown. Guideline value cannot be treated at par with market value. It is only a guide to determine the market value. Market value fluctuates on various factors, chiefly on its potential to Page No.35 of 42 develop into house sites. Moreover, the said reference Sale Deed was neither considered by the L.A.O., nor filed before the Reference Court or before this Court as additional evidence. It is also not reflected in the sales statistics. That Land Acquisition Original Petition was decided on its own merits. Hence, the market price fixed for the subject land in L.A.O.P. No.305 of 2000 cannot be considered as such for fixing the market price of the acquired lands of the claimants' herein.

¶31It is apposite to cite here Section 54 of the L.A. Act, 1894 which reads as hereunder: "54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. - Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to [the Supreme Court] subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV thereof." Page No.36 of 42

¶32The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the Appeal proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act, 1894. Hence, unless duly received and marked as evidence, a document cannot be taken into consideration in an Appeal proceedings under the L.A. Act, 1894. The present claim must be adjudicated in accordance with the evidence already forming part of the record and not on the basis of any document merely found in the typed set of papers.

¶33Further, as regards the question of interest for the default period, it is true that L.A.O.P. Nos.171 of 1989, 152 of 1989, 23 of 1990 and 25 of 1990 were closed and subsequently restored. At the time of restoration, no objection was endorsed by the Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer therein. In these circumstances, considering the object of the L.A. Act, 1894, which is to provide just and fair compensation to the claimants, this Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to claim interest as per the statute from the date of acquisition till the date of realization inclusive of the period in default.

¶34The Reference Court took the sale transaction in Serial No.3 of the sales statistics as the exemplar sale. In the said Sale Deed, an extent of 864 sq. ft. of land was sold for Rs.3,400/-, which corresponds to the rate of Page No.37 of 42 Rs.1714/- per Cent. The Reference Court failed to consider the remaining 24 transactions in respect of lands of comparable classification, potential and features. Further, it also made arithmetical errors while reckoning compensation, and erroneously granted a compensation on the higher side, at the rate of Rs.8,570/- per Cent. The same is liable to be set aside.

¶35This Court has considered the case laws submitted on either side. No serious quarrel with the same.

¶36In view of the above, considering the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.50,000/- per Acre could be the market value for the subject lands. Accordingly, this Court fixes a sum of Rs.50,000/- per Acre. CONCLUSION

¶37In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P. No.1123 of 2026 in A.S.No.4 of 2017 is dismissed. The Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in A.S. Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 of 2017 are allowed in part and the Appeals filed by the claimants in A.S. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 21 of 2025 are dismissed and a sum of Rs.50,000/- per Acre is fixed as market value to all the subject lands. Page No.38 of 42

37.1. Further, the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 viz., solatium under Section 23 (2), additional compensation under Section 23 (1 - A) and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

37.2. Any amount of compensation already paid shall be adjusted from the compensation now payable. The Appellants in A.S. Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 of 2017 are directed to deposit the compensation amount as modified by this Court, less the compensation if any already deposited into the Court, within three (3) months from today.

37.3. As stated supra, as no objection was endorsed by the Government Pleader appeared for the Land Acquisition Officer therein, at the time of restoration of the Land Acquisition Original Petitions, bearing in mind the object of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimants are entitled to claim interest as per the statute i.e., from the date of Section 4(1) Notification till realisation inclusive of the period in default. Page No.39 of 42

37.4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.] 03 / 06 / 2026 Index

: Yes : Yes Speaking Order : Yes TK To

1.The Subordinate Court Namakkal.

2.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Veterinary College, Namakkal.

3.The Registrar Veterinary Medical College, Veppery, Chennai. Page No.40 of 42 Page No.41 of 42 N.SATHISHoKUMAR,oJ. AND R.SAKTHIVEL,oJ. TK PRE-DELIVERYoCOMMONoJUDGMENToMADEoIN A.S.oNOS.17,o18,o19oANDo21oOFo2025 AND A.S.oNOS.4,o5,o6oANDo7oOFo2017 o03oo/o06o/o2026o Page No.42 of 42

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoJUDICATUREoAToMADRAS JUDGMENToRESERVEDoONo:o23o/o02o/o2026 JUDGMENToPRONOUNCEDoONo:o03o/o06o/o2026 CORAMo: THEoHONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoN.SATHISHoKUMAR AND THEoHONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoR.SAKTHIVEL A.S.oNOS.17,o18,o19oANDo21oOFo2025 AND A.S.oNOS.4,o5,o6oANDo7oOFo2017 AND CMPoNOS.162oo&o6965oOFo2017,o16451oOFo2018oANDo1123oOFo2026 INoA.S.oNO.4oOFo2017 AND oC.M.P.oNOS.165,o6966oOFo2017oANDo16452oOFo2018 INoA.S.oNO.5oOFo2017 AND C.M.P.oNOS.168,o6967oOFo2017oANDo16453oOFo2018 INoA.S.oNO.6oOFo2017 AND C.M.P.oNOS.171,o6968oOFo2017oANDo16454oOFo2018 INoA.S.oNO.7oOFo2017 A.S.oNO.17oOFo2025 Kalimuthu S/o.PalappaoGounder Nallaiyagoundanpudur,oS.Karadu, LathuvadioVillage,o NamakkaloTaluko&oDistrict.o ... Appellanto/o Claimanto o Versus Page No.1 of 42 1.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Veterinary College, Namakkal. ... 1st Respondent / Referring Officer 2.The Registrar Veterinary Medical College, Veppery, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent / Beneficiary Officer PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to enhance the compensation awarded vide the Order and Decree dated July 24, 2015 made in L.A.O.P. No.152 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Court, Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.G.Bharadwaj and Mr.J.Melwin Jabaz For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.P.C.Harikumar A.S. NO.18 OF 2025 V.Palani Gounder Nallaiya Goundan Pudur, S.Karadu, Lathuvadi Village, Namakkal Taluk & District. ... Appellant / Claimant Formerly residing at Periya Iyyampalayam, Mettu Salai, Nallipalayam. Versus Page No.2 of 42 1.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Veterinary College, Namakkal. ... 1st Respondent / Referring Officer 2.The Registrar Veterinary Medical College, Veppery, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent / Beneficiary Officer PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to enhance the compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated July 24, 2015 made in L.A.O.P. No.25 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Court, Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.G.Bharadwaj and Mr.J.Melwin Jabaz For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.P.C.Harikumar A.S. NO.19 OF 2025 P.Sengodan S/o.Periya Gounder Periya Ayyampalayam, Nalli Palayam Village and Post, Namakkal Taluk & District. ... Appellant / Claimant Versus Page No.3 of 42 1.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Veterinary College, Namakkal. ... 1st Respondent / Referring Officer 2.The Registrar Veterinary Medical College, Veppery, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent / Beneficiary Officer PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to enhance the compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated July 24, 2015 made in L.A.O.P. No.23 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Court, Namakkal. For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondent-1 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.G.Bharadwaj and Mr.J.Melwin Jabaz For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.Vijayakumar Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.P.C.Harikumar A.S. NO.21 OF 2025 Kalimuthu S/o.Palappa Gounder Nallaiyagoundanpudur, S.Karadu, Lathuvadi Village, Namakkal Taluk & District. ... Appellant / 1st Claimant Versus Page No.4 of 42 1.The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Veterinary College, Namakkal. ... 1st Respondent / Referring Officer 2.The Registrar Veterinary Medical College, Veppery, Chennai. ... 2nd Respondent / Beneficiary Officer 3.Chellappan S/o. Palappa Gounder 4.Chellammal W/o. Palappa Gounder ... Respondent