Madras High Court
Powergrid Corporation Of India Limited vs K.Radhakrishnan on 6 April, 2011
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :06.04.2011
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.863 to 867 of 2005,
769 to 773 of 2005,
1463 to 1466, 567 to 569,
449 to 455, 456 to 458, 655 to 657
2722 to 2731 of 2010
and
C.M.P.No.6347 to 6351 of 2005, 5805 to 5809 of 2005
C.R.P.No.863 of 2005:
Powergrid Corporation of India Limited,
rep.by its Asst.Manager,
400 KV SS,
Myvadi, Udumalpet. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.K.Radhakrishnan
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.,
400 KV Transmission Syste,
Udumalpet.
3. The Collector,
Coimbatore.
4.The Tahsildar,
Pollachi Taluk, Pollachi ... Respondents
2nd respondent given up
C.R.P.No.863 of 2005: Civil revision petition field against the order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in O.P.No.102 of 1990.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ravi in
863 to 867 of 2005,
769 to 773 of 2005,
5805 to 5809 of 2005,
1463 to 1466, 567 to 569,
449 to 455, 456 to 458, 655 to 657
Mr.C.Prakasam in
2722 to 2731 of 2005
For Respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam for the land owners/
respondents in 863 to 867 of 2005,
769 to 773 of 2005,
5805 to 5809 of 2005,
1463 to 1466, 567 to 569,
449 to 455, 456 to 458, 655 to 657
Mr.R.Ravi for Powergrid Corporation
in 2722 to 2731 of 2005
O R D E R
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.863 to 867 of 2005, 769 to 773 of 2005, 1463 to 1466, 567 to 569, 449 to 455, 456 to 458, 655 to 657 of 2005 are filed by the Powergrid Corporation of India Limited, and C.R.P.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005 are filed by the land owners inveighing the common order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in the respective Ops.
2. A recapitulation and resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:
(i) The Powergrid Corporation of India Limited, in the process of laying high tension wires in the aerial space over the lands of various farmers, virtually, was constrained to invoke the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), and consequently, after complying with the necessary provisions, started using the concerned portions of the land and that too after cutting down trees, in the process of laying such high tension electric wire.
(ii) The authority concerned, after issuing notice, conducted enquiry and assessed the value of compensation payable to the respective land owners.
(iii) On being objected to by the land owners, the matter was referred to the District Court for adjudication. After hearing both sides, the District Judge passed the orders. The following tabulation would reveal the details.
Sl.
No. C.R.P.No. No of trees cut down Valueassessed and awarded by the Court 1 863 121 Rs. 5000/-
2 655 775000/-
3 864 1296000/-
4 769 286000/-
5 77148 + 1 5000/- + 1000/-
6 770-
-
7 865 1085000/-
8 867 335000/-
9 866 315000/-
10 457 616000/-
11 456 935000/-
12 772 563000/-
13 656 1543000/-
14 458 1281000/-
15 452 152000/-
35000/-
16 453 155000/-
17 449 1285000/-
18 451 443000/-
41000/-
19 657 364000/-
20 567 415000/-
21 773 2823000/-
22 450-
-
23 454 1363000/-
24 568 705000/-
25 569 1433000/-
26 4555000/-
271463 to 1466 3000/-
3. Being aggrieved by such assessment, both the Powergrid Corporation of India as well as some land owners preferred these civil revision petitions as referred to supra.
4. In fact, some of the land owners have prayed for enhancement of the compensation and the Powergrid Corporation has prayed for reducing the same awarded by the District Judge.
5. All these matters are taken together for discussion.
6. On behalf of Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd, the learned counsel would submit that he is restricting his argument only to the extent that the multiplier 8 should be applied and not 10, as virtually applied by the District Judge in calculating and assessing the compensation. He would also submit that in some of the cases, the land owners themselves have not asked for any enhancement at a rate assessed by the District Judge.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners in C.R.P.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2005 would put forth and set forth his arguments thus:
(i) Solatium is contemplated under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even though the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is as silent as silence could be, yet the judicial decisions emerged thereunder would unambiguously and unequivocally contemplate that the assessment of compensation should be in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherefore, awarding solatium and interest etc., would automatically follow. But in none of the cases here, solatium was awarded by the authority concerned or the District Judge, and thereore it warrants interference in C.R.P.
(ii) Ultimately, the learned counsel would submit that he restrict his argument thus:
(a) Solatium should be awarded on the amount assessed by the District Judge.
(b) The multiplier, virtually, 10 adopted by the District Judge is not at all on the higher side, because after cutting down the trees, the farmers are having nothing to do with the land, which virtually amounted to Land Acquisition itself.
(c) Under the high tension wires, no fruitful cultivation is possible and even before taking the high tension wire over the land of the farmers, they were not cultivating anything except coconut and other trees. Inasmuch as the trees were cut and high tension wire are passing over the land, the question of putting into beneficial use the land would not arise and as such, it amounts to land acquisition itself.
8. The points for consideration are as under:
(i) Whether over and above multiplier 8 could be applied for assessing the compensation?
(ii) Whether the land owners are entitled to solatium as contemplated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount assessed?
9. The indubitable and indisputable facts are that in the aerial space of the land of the land owners in these cases, the Powergrid Corporation has laid the high tension wires and they arranged them in such a manner that virtually, beneath the wires, on the ground no fruitful cultivation could be effected and absolutely there is no shard or shred, miniscule or jot, molecular or iota of evidence to display and demonstrate that the land owners are capable of cultivating any fruitful crop which could yield any income. Hence, I would like to hold that by the act of Powergrid Corporation in taking such high tension wire over the land concerned, the relevant portion of the land of the farmers fell into disuse and no income could be derived by them; wherefore, the District Judge was correct in viewing that the land owners could not get any income from the land after the trees having been cut down. As such, the income which arose out of the land concerned was only the income derived from the trees and inasmuch as, the trees were cut, the entire income from the land concerned also got lost. As such, the District Judge was right in applying the multiplier system in assessing the compensation. The annual income from the trees was assessed based on the data furnished by both sides before the District Judge, who, as found in the records, took into account the fruit yielding capacity of each tree; the value of the leaves; the age of the coconut trees and other fruit bearing trees. Before me, both sides submitted that this Court may not go into all those details and that they would be satisfied if decision is rendered on the appropriate multiplier to be applied in assessing the compensation.
10. I would refer to the decisions cited on both sides.
(a) The learned counsel for the Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd., cited the following decisions:
(i) 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 637 STATE OF HARYANA V. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"3. Ms Suruchi Agarwal, learned counsel for the State, contended that the High Court has committed grave error of law in upholding the determination of the compensation both to the land as well as fruit-bearing trees and has also further committed error in enhancing the market value of the fruit-bearing trees in addition to the confirmation of compensation separately awarded for the land and the fruit-bearing trees. It is against the settled principle of law as laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions. We find force in the contention. Shri Bagga, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the year 1966 the price index was at 144 points whereas in 1970 the index was found to be at 213 points. The High Court, therefore, was right in increasing the compensation for the fruit-bearing trees by 60%. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit-bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given. In this case, the High Court did not adopt this procedure. We have looked into the figures furnished in the judgment of the High Court of the amount awarded by the Officer himself. He too, while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs 12,240 per acre on the basis of the yield, applied a multiplier of more than 8 years. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than an 8 years multiplier, as it is a settled law of this Court in a catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be a suitable multiplier.
(ii) (2002) 3 SCC 527 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. SATYAGOPAL ROY AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"5. Therefore, the only question is whether the multiplier applied by the High Court was justified. It is true that in the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case1 it has been held that in a catena of decisions rendered by this Court when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation, 8 years multiplier would be an appropriate multiplier.
8. It is settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and building or the land with fruit-bearing trees standing thereon, value of both is to be determined not as separate units but as one unit. . . . . . .The question is limited with regard to payment of compensation for the damages because of cutting of trees. With regard to fruit-bearing trees, their lifespan including risk factor is also required to be taken into consideration. Hence, yield of trees multiplied by an appropriate multiplier for its capitalization after taking into consideration all relevant factors would be the basis for determining the compensation.
12. . . . . .
It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit-bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit-bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over; once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. Under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than an 8 years multiplier, as it is a settled law of this Court in a catena of decisions that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or a plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be the appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be a suitable multiplier. (emphasis supplied)
13. In that case, after considering the fact that the Collector has given compensation which could not be interfered with by the Court under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court did not reduce the same. However, the Court set aside 60% enhancement of compensation given by the High Court on the basis of price index.
14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case1 and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.
. . .
However, it would not operate as a precedent to any future case or other cases arising from the same notification. All cases need to be decided applying only 10 years multiplier.
(iii) (1997) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 505 K.G.PADMANABHA PRABHU V. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
5. The Board has vide Resolution dated 1-7-1972 decided to follow the procedure provided in the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Manual for determination of the compensation for trees. It postulates the notice to the owner and powers of entry, marking of the trees as provided in paragraph 13 and then preparation of the valuation statement as provided in paragraph 17 of the Manual and the diminution of the land value on account of the installation of electric lines over private properties as provided in paragraph 30 of the Manual. Accordingly, the award is required to be passed under paragraph 33 of the Manual in that behalf.
(a) The learned counsel for the land owners cited the following decisions:
(i) (2011) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 139 OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED;
(ii) (2007) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 526 Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. vs. Kamadana Ramakrishnan Rao and another, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"17. Again in a recent decision in Asstt. Commr.-cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. S.T. Pompanna Setty7 it is reiterated that where compensation is awarded on yield basis, multiplier of 10 is considered proper and appropriate.
18. Applying the ratio of the decisions of this Court in the abovesaid cases, we are of the view that the High Court committed no error of law or any perversity in awarding the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000 per acre to the claimant respondents. It is no doubt true that the High Court has not given adequate and proper reasons in its order, but the pith and substance of the order cannot be found to be faulty.
20. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horsegram, bobbara, cholum were grown by the claimant respondents in the acquired Land No. F. 1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimant respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which would have fetched Rs 4000 to Rs 5000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs 22,000 per acre to the claimant respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted."
(iii) (2007) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 792 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. MVISHA AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor. Section 10 of the Act empowers the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, or posts in or upon any immovable property. Section 11 empowers the officers to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts. Section 12 empowers the authority to grant permission for laying down such lines to a local authority in terms of Clauses (c) and (d) of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act subject to reasonable conditions as it may think fit. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under:
. . . .
. . . .
"10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.
11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit-bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao5 wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri v. Financial Commr. & Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Punjab6, State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh7, para 4 and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy8. In Airports Authority8 it was held: (SCC p. 533, para 14) 14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case7 and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.
(iii) 2001 (4) CTC 434 SUNDAR V. UNION OF INDIA
(iv) AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 410 K.G.PADMANABHA PRABHU V. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS;
11. The decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 637 STATE OF HARYANA V. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER contemplating 8 multiplier is the law governing the field. The District Judge, even though in so many words had not stated that he applied the multiplier 10, the method and manner in which he calculated the compensation, unambiguously and unequivocally demonstrates and evinces that he applied ultimately the multiplier 10 only, so to say, the income per tree was assessed in a sum of Rs.500/- and he calculated the income for 25 years and thereafter, slashed it down to Rs.5000/-, which means, he applied the multiplier 10.
12. The learned counsel for the Powergrid Corporation would submit that instead of the multiplier 10, the multiplier 8 should have been applied. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owners would submit that multiplier 10 has to be enhanced, because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, as in the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2007) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 526 Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. vs. Kamadana Ramakrishnan Rao and another, referred to supra it was observed that there is no static formula for computing the compensation and it differs from case to case, and furthermore, the diminution of the land value also should be taken into consideration.
13. I would like to point out that in the same decision in paragraph No.20, the Honourable Apex Court pointed out that the computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier 20, as adopted by the Reference Court in that case was on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court.
14. In this connection I would like to place reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 637 STATE OF HARYANA V. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER, referred to supra. As such, assessing the value of the land by applying the annual yield, so to say, the multiplier method is permissible.
15. I would like to refer to the recent decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 The SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS, in which, various methods of calculation are contemplated. Accordingly, if seen, applying the multiplier method is one of the methods for assessing the land value. As such, in this case, correctly the District Judge resorted to the multiplier system. However, he applied the 10 multiplier instead of 8, and therefore the compensation per coconut tree would come to Rs.4000/- and not Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, point No.(i) is decided.
16. Point No.(ii):The learned counsel for the land owners would cite the unreported judgment of this Court dated 4.3.2011 in 1.T.Chakrapani and others v. 1.Union of India, rep.by Secretary, National Highways Department, New Delhi.
17. A mere perusal of the aforesaid decision would exemplify and demonstrate that the said decision emerged in relation to the Highways Act and it is obvious and axiomatic that under the Highways Act lands are acquired, and hence, while acquiring the land certainly relating to the acquisition, solatium also has to be paid along with the value of the land. But, here, the lands have not been acquired, but only the lands of the farmers are under the use of Powergrid Corporation of India Limited. In none of the judgments cited relating to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Honourable Supreme Court indicated that Solatium has to be calculated on the compensation amount.
18. The learned counsel for the land owners would submit that once the Honourable Apex Court laid down the law that the methodology to be adopted for assessing the value of the land under the Land Acquisition Act should be adopted under the Indian Telegraph Act, it means that solatium also should be awarded and the Court cannot carve out an exception.
19. Whereas, the learned counsel for Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd would submit that if really the situation is as detailed and delineated by the learned counsel for the land owners, then the Supreme Court would not have any hesitation in awarding in various cases emerged under the Indian Telegraph Act, the solatium also. In fact, the aforesaid cases emerged from Kerala and in that, the lower authorities as well as the High Court did not award any solatium and the Supreme Court also never mandated that solatium should be awarded on the compensation amount assessed.
20. The learned counsel for the land owners' contention that the diminution of the value of the land also should be considered in addition to the value of the trees cut, is neither here nor there.
21. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm but without being tautalogous, I would like to refer to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2010) 5 SCC 708 The SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs. KARIGOWDA AND OTHERS, cited supra. Certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"What method should be adopted for determining the fair market value of the acquired land
70. To examine what method could be adopted for determining the market value of land and criticism of the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, by the courts, that the same is not in accordance with law, we must notice various methods which are normally adopted by the courts for determining the fair market value of the land and which of the method can be more properly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.
71. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act spell out the have and have-nots, applicable to the scheme of awarding compensation by the Collector but do not describe the methodology which should be adopted by the courts in determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. By development of law, the courts have adopted different methods for computing the compensation payable to the landowners depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts have been exercising their discretion by adopting different methods, inter alia the following methods have a larger acceptance in law:
(a) Sales statistics method.In applying this method, it has been stated that, sales must be genuine and bona fide, should have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and the land should be comparable to the acquired land. The land covered under the sale instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the acquired land (Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd. v. Om Prakash12, Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.13 and Ravinder Narain v. Union of India14).
(b) Capitalisation of net income method.This method has also been applied by the courts. In this method of determination of market value, capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method has been applied (Union of India v. Shanti Devi15, Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi16 and Nelson Fernandes v. Land Acquisition Officer8).
(c) Agricultural yield basis method.Agricultural yield of the acquired land with reference to revenue records and keeping in mind the potential and nature of the landwet (irrigated), dry and barren (banjar).
72. Normally, where the compensation is awarded on agricultural yield or capitalisation method basis, the principle of multiplier is also applied for final determination. These are broadly the methods which are applied by the courts with further reduction on account of development charges. In some cases, depending upon the peculiar facts, this Court has accepted the principle of granting compound increase at the rate of 10% to 15% of the fair market value determined in accordance with law to avoid any unfair loss to the claimants suffering from compulsive acquisition. However, this consideration should squarely fall within the parameters of Section 23 while taking care that the negative mandate contained in Section 24 of the Act is not offended. How one or any of the principles aforestated is to be applied by the courts, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
22. A mere perusal of the above precedent would exemplify and connote that if multiplier method itself is resorted to in valuing the land then once again the market value of the land would not be taken into account. However, one point I would like to clarify, by way of disambiguating the ambiguity, if any, that so far this case is concerned, the amount assessed by applying the multiplier system need not be reduced by taking into account only the diminution value, because, here the diminution value is the entire value of the land itself, and it is quite obvious that under the high tension wire, no cultivation is possible and for that matter they were not even doing any cultivation earlier except getting income from those trees which were cut down. In the result, I hold that the land owners are not entitled to solatium. However, the District Judge awarded 9% interest p.a. which need not be interfered with as this Court has already reduced the multiplier from 10 to 8 and that the poor land owners are not awarded with solatium also.
23. With the above modification, the civil revision petitions filed by the land owners, viz., C.R.P.Nos.2722 to 2731 of 2010 are dismissed and the C.R.P.Nos.863 to 867 of 2005, 769 to 771 of 2005, 567 to 568, 449, 450, 453, 455, 456 to 457 and 655 of 2005, filed by the Powergrid Corporation of India Limited are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the civil revision petitions (C.R.P.Nos.1463 to 1466 of 2005, 772, 656, 451, 452, 458, 773, 454, 569 of 2005) filed challenging the awarding of sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. in favour of the land owners shall stand dismissed because those are not in any way in excess of the multiplier 8, and furthermore, those land owners also have not filed any C.R.P. Similarly, C.R.P.No.657 of of 2005 also shall stand dismissed. The award amount shall be disbursed to the land owners within two months from this date. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Msk To The I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore