CRP/4907/2025 of E.D.SUNDARAMURTHY Vs The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) on 13 November 2026

1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project -III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056.

2. The Devisional Engineer (Highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development and Plan (Division) Saidapet, Chennai -15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 775 of 2021 CNR:{HCMA010521322018} The Special Deputy Collector

(la) , Tamilnadu Urban Development Project-111, Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai-56 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. S.L.Asha Banu D/o Lakshmi Narayanan, No.5 Ekkadu Road, Tiruvallur Tk, Tiruvallur 602001

2. K.Srinivasan S/o T.Kasirajan, 32/1, J.N.Road, Tiruvallur 602001

3. The Divisional Engineer (highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division Ii, Saidapet, Chennai- 600015

CRP No. 3005 of 2023 CNR:{HCMA011055732023} P. Vasanthi W/o Panneerselvam, No 58, Perumal Street, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Special Deputy Collector(la)

Tamil Nadu Urban Development, Project III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai 56.

2. The Divisional Engineer(Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division II, Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 3006 of 2023 CNR:{HCMA011055742023}

1. L.S.Asha Banu D/o Lakshmi Narayanan, No 5, Ekkadu Road, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

2. K.Srinivasan S/o T.Kasirajan, No 32/1, J.N Road, Tiruvallur 602 001. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Special Deputy Collector(la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development, Project III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai 56.

2. The Divisional Engineer(Highways)

Division II, Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 4906 of 2025 CNR:{HCMA011469542025} G.Ravichandran S/o Ganesan, No.7/17, Sathyamurthy Street, Tiruvallur 602 201 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Special Deputy Collector(land Acquisition) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056

2. The Divisional Engineer (higways)

Chennai Metropolitan Development and Plan (Division) Saidapet, Chennai 15 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 4914 of 2025 CNR:{HCMA011469562025} D.Sundaramurthy, S/o.Duraisamy Mudali, No.25, Vellala Street, Puliyur, Kodambakkam, Chennai -600 024. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project -III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056.

2. The Devisional Engineer (Highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development and Plan (Division) Saidapet, Chennai -15.

CRP No. 4920 of 2025 CNR:{HCMA011469572025} G.Ravichandran S/o. Ganesan, No. 7/17, Sathyamurthy Street, Tiruvallur 602 201 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project -III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056.

2. The Devisional Engineer (Highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development and Plan (Division) Saidapet, Chennai -15.

CRP No. 2167 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640022025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-III, Tiruvallur

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015

3. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Tiruvallur-602001. ..Petitioner(s) Vs E D Gajapathy S/o.Duraisamy, No.7/6,Jayabaratham Street, Director Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.

CRP No. 2180 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640052025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-III, Tiruvallur

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs M. Sundara Velayutham Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-III, Tiruvallur

CRP No. 2308 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640062025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs O. Rajendran ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2178 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640162025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs J. Sellathai

CRP No. 2204 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640222025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran St, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. K Alavandhar

2. Sesaiya Naidu S/o.Kannaiya Naidu, Ekkadu Village, Tiruvallur 602 021. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 966 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640232025}

1. The Special Tahsildar LA Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II, No.29 Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur (amended as per order in IA.No.1 of 2024 dated 03-08-2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs Jegan Mohan Rao S/o. Devaraj, No.280 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602021. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2177 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640282025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project,Unit-II, No.29,Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur-602001. (Amended as per order in I.A.No.1/2024 dated 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer (HIghways) ..Petitioner(s) Vs S Venkatesan S.Venkatesan, S/o.Saravana Naidu, No.184,Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur-602201.

CRP No. 2183 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640442025}

1. The Special Tahsildar LA

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs A . G. Mohan ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2307 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640672025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Shanthi W/o. Velayutham, Res. at Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village and Post, Thiruvallur-21.

2. Ravichandran S/o. Velayutham, Res. at Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village and Post, Thiruvallur-21.

3. Mani S/o. Velayutham, Res. at Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village and Post, Thiruvallur-21.

4. Kalaivani D/o. Velayutham,

Res. at Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village and Post, Thiruvallur-21.

5. Elangovan S/o. Velayutham, Res. at Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village and Post, Thiruvallur-21. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2196 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640702025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs V. George ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2299 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640772025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29,

Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs T. P. Sundramurthy S/o. T.Parthasarathy, No.485, Karuneekar Street, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur-21. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2413 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640782025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer ( HIghways)

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs J. Sellathai W/o.Jayaraj Nadar, No.72/165 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

CRP No. 2203 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640922025}

1. The Special Tahsildar LA Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran St, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Petitioner(s) Vs S. Venkatesan ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2301 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011640992025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs E J Balasubramanian

CRP No. 2189 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641042025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs S. Amsa ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2440 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641082025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

S. Ravishankar S/o. Chandrasekar No. 41/19, Mohamed Ali Street Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602021 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2438 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641102025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs S. Jamuna ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2171 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641172025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai peripheral Ring Road Project,Unit-II, No.29,Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur-602001. ( (Amended as per order in I.A.No.1/2024 dated 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Saidapet,

Chennai-600015.

3. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. A Nepolian No.34/9,E.K.Mandapam Back Side, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur.

2. A Nelson No.34/9,E.K.Mandapam Back Side, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur.

3. Joy Annal Mary Tiruvallur ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2191 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641182025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G. Selvaraj

2. G Ravichandran Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Saidapet, Chennai-600015

3. A Dhayalan Res at Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill, R.H.Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 201

4. G Gajendran Res at Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill, R.H.Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 201

5. A Saravanan Res at Balamurugan Modern Rice Mill, R.H.Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 201 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2404 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641252025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

V. Usha Rani ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2416 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641282025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (HIghways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. K. Thirunavukkarasu

2. Usha Rani Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

3. Ranganayaki Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

4. Nirmala Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

5. Kavitha Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

6. Saravanan Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

7. Suresh Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021.

8. Rani Old No.2/4, New No.201 Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 021. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2448 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641322025}

1. The Special Tahsildar LA Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. S. Velayutham S/o. Srinivasan Plot No. 50, 4th Street, VKN Nagar, Ekkadu

2. Kannan S/o. Srinivasan No. 589, Karuneer Street Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602021

CRP No. 2198 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641432025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015

3. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Saidapet, Chennai-600015. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Neelakandan

2. M.Ramu Residing at No.203,Redhills Road, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur-602021. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2205 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011641442025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran St, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015

..Petitioner(s) Vs K.S.Ravikumar ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2209 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686722025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran St, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. T. P. Gunasundari

2. P Jamunabai

3. Nirmala W/o.Paramasivam, No.101/350, Amanambakkam, Poonkavanathamman Koil St, Veliyur Post, Tiruvallur Tk, Tiruvallur 602 021.

4. B Jayalakshmi

CRP No. 2190 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686742025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs K. Alavandhar ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2447 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686752025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways

Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs K. Alavandhar

S/o. Kannaiya Naidu Ekkadu, Tiruvallur 602 201 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2305 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686772025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs Punithavalli W/o. P.Anandhan, No.471, Keelpathi Street, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur-201.

CRP No. 2414 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686782025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (HIghways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs S. Gajapathy ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2408 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686792025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (la) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. T. Malliga (died) 1. T. R. Thulasiraman S/o. Rangasamy New No. 31, Old No. 14A Asoori Street, Tiruvallur Taluk and Dist. 602001

2. Balaji S/o. Rangasamy No. 126, HIG-II/ Phase-1 7th Cross Street, Ambattur Taluk Tiruvallur Dist 600 037

CRP No. 2193 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011686812025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II

No. 29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001 (Amended as per order in IA No.1/2024 dt. 03.08.2024)

2. The Divisional Engineer HIghways Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G. Selvaraj

2. G Ravichandran Tiruvallur

3. A Dhayalan Tiruvallur

4. G Gajendran Tiruvallur

5. A Saravanan Tiruvallur ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2295 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011687042025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

Division -II, Saidapet,

Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs M. Rani ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2415 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011687052025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran Street, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (HIghways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division -II, Saidapet, Chennai 600015 ..Petitioner(s) Vs M. Loganathan ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 2200 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011687072025}

1. The Special Tahsildar (LA) Chennai Peripheral Ring Road Project, Unit-II NO.29, Cheran St, Rajajipuram, Tiruvallur 602 001

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-II Saidapet,

Chennai 15. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. S. Ravishankar

2. Latha ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 774 of 2021 CNR:{HCMA013216952018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development, Project Iii Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai-56 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. P.Vasanthi W/o.Panneerselvam, No.58, Perumal St, Tiruvallur Dist-602001

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division Ii, Saidapet, Chennai-15

CRP No. 4037 of 2019 CNR:{HCMA013217012018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project Iii, Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. P. Gowsalya W/o. P.P. Duraijau, No.1097, Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village And Post, Tiruvallur.

2. D. Sivaprakasam

1097, Redhills Road, Ekkadu Village And Post, Tiruvallur.

3. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan (division) Saidapet, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1399 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238462018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project - Iii Chennai At Poonamallee Chennai 56. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Kowsalya W/o Durairaj Pillai All Are Residing At No.1087, Redhills Salai Ekkadu Village And Post Tiruvallur Taluk And Dt 602 021

2. D.Sivaprakasam All Are Residing At No.1087, Redhills Salai Ekkadu Village And Post Tiruvallur Taluk And Dt 602 021

3. D.Parathipan All Are Residing At No.1087, Redhills Salai Ekkadu Village And Post Tiruvallur Taluk And Dt 602 021

4. D.Ravikumar All Are Residing At No.1087, Redhills Salai Ekkadu Village And Post Tiruvallur Taluk And Dt 602 021

5. D.Prabhakaran All Are Residing At No.1087, Redhills Salai Ekkadu Village And Post Tiruvallur Taluk And Dt 602 021

6. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan (division) Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1397 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238522018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project-iii, Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai-56 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. E.S.Elangovan S/o. E.D.Subramani No.49/484 Keezhpathi Street, Ekkadu, Tiruvallur-602 021

2. E.S.Sathiyamoorthy S/o. E.D. SUBRAMANI NO.49/484 KEEZHPATHI STREET, EKKADU,TIRUVALLUR-602 021.

3. E.S.Saravanavelu S/o.E.D.SUBRAMANI No. 49/484 KEEZHPATHI STREET,EKKADU, TIRUVALLUR-602 021

4. The Divisional Engineer (highways)

(division) Saidapet, Chennai-15 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1400 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238532018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project - Iii, Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai 56 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. D.Sundaramurthy S/o Duraisamy Mudali, 25, Vellala St., Puliyur, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 024.

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan'(division) Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1398 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238562018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamilnadu Urban Development Project-iii, Chennai At Poonamallee, Chennai-56 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. E.D.Sundaramurthy S/o.Duraisamy Mudali, 25, Vellala Street, Puliyur, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways)

(division), Saidapet, Chennai-15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1395 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238592018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project - Iii Chennai At Poonamallee Chennai 56. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G.Ravichandran S/o Ganesa Chettair 7/17, Sathiyamurthy St.,

Tiruvallur 602 021.

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan (division) Saidapet, Chennai 15. ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1393 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238622018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project-iii, Chennai At Poonamallee,Chennai-56. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G.Ravichandran S/o.Ganesa Chettiar, No.7/17, Sathiyamurthy Street, Tiruvallur.

2. The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

(Division) Saidapet, Chennai-15 ..Respondent(s) CRP No. 1396 of 2020 CNR:{HCMA013238652018} The Special Deputy Collector (la) Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project- iii,Chennai At Poonamallee,Chennai-56. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. D.Parangusam S/o. DAKSHNAMURTHY, 2/236,REDHILLS ROAD, EKKADU, TIRUVALLUR

2. The Divisional Engineer (highways) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan(division) Saidapet, Chennai-15.

To set aside the order dated 16.12.2017 made in LAOP. No.80 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sub-Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur and thus render justice. CRP No. 3005 of 2023 To set aside the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.9 of 2016 dated 23.02.2018 of the learned Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur District and grant such other relief or relieves as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. CRP No. 3006 of 2023 To set aside the Judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2016 dated 16.12.2017 of the learned Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur District and grant such other relief or relieves as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. CRP No. 4906 of 2025 To set aside the Order dated 16.12.2017 made in LAOP.No. 81 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sub Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur CRP No. 4914 of 2025 To set aside the order dated 16.12.2017 made in LAOP. No.79 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sub-Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur and thus render justice. CRP No. 4920 of 2025 To set aside the order dated 16.12.2017 made in LAOP. No.82 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sub-Court for LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur and thus render justice.

CRP No. 2167 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.107 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur and pass such further or other as this Hon'ble Court. CRP No. 2180 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP No. 112 of 2024 dt. 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2308 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.109/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2178 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP No. 135 of 2024 dt. 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2204 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.No. 139/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 966 of 2026 To set aside the judgement and decree in LAOP.No.110 of 2024 dated 18-03-2025 on the file of the Prl.Dist.Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2177 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.118 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur and pass such further or other as this Hon'ble Court. CRP No. 2183 of 2026 To set aside the judgement and decree in LAOP.No.124 of 2024 dated 18-03-2025 on the file of the Prl.Dist.Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2307 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.108/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur.

CRP No. 2196 of 2026 To set aside the Judgement and Decree in LAOP.No.137 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur CRP No. 2299 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.120/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2413 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.134/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2203 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.No. 117/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2301 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.130/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2189 of 2026 To set aside the Judgement and Decree in LAOP.No.128 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur CRP No. 2440 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.129/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2438 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.111/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2171 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.106 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur and pass such further or other as this Hon'ble Court.

CRP No. 2191 of 2026 To set aside the Judgement and Decree in LAOP.No.133 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur CRP No. 2404 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.114/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2416 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.115/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2448 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.136/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2198 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and Decree in LAOP.No.113 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur and pass such further or other as this Hon'ble Court . CRP No. 2205 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.127/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2209 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.105/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2190 of 2026 To set aside the Judgement and Decree in LAOP.No.122 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur CRP No. 2447 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.121/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur.

CRP No. 2305 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.116/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2414 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.126/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2408 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.138/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2193 of 2026 To set aside the Judgement and Decree in LAOP.No.132 of 2024 dated 18.03.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur CRP No. 2295 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.125/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2415 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.131/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 2200 of 2026 To set aside the Judgment and decree in LAOP.NO.119/2024 dated 18.3.2025 on the file of Principal District Court at Tiruvallur. CRP No. 774 of 2021 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP No.9 of 2016 dt. 23.02.2018 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur CRP No. 4037 of 2019 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP NO.1 of 2017 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur.

CRP No. 1399 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP No.11/2016 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. CRP No. 1397 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.78 of 2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. CRP No. 1400 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP No.79/2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur, and pass such further or other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. CRP No. 1398 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.80 of 2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. CRP No. 1395 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP No.81/2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. CRP No. 1393 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.82 of 2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. CRP No. 1396 of 2020 To set aside the decree passed in LAOP.No.83 of 2015 dated 16.12.2017 on the file of the Special Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Vijay in CRP.Nos.4907, 4906, 4914, 4920 of

Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Sunil Govt. Advocate in CRP.Nos.966 of 2026, 1393,

1395 to 1400 of 2020, 774 & 775 of 2021, 4037 of 2019, 2308, 2167, 2171, 2178, 2177, 2180,2183, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2193, 2196, 2198, 2200, 2203 to 2205, 2209, 2295, 2299, 2301, 2305, 2307, 2404, 2408, 2413 to 2416, 2438, 2440, 2447 & 2448 of 2026. Mr.P.S.Kothandaram in CRP.Nos.3005 & 3006 of 2023. For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Vijay for R1 in CRP.Nos.1393, 1395, 1398 & 1400 of 2025 Mr.Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Sunil Govt. Advocate in CRP.Nos.4907, 4906, 4914 & 4920 of 2025 & 3005 & 3006 of 2023 Mr.P.S.Kothandaram for R1 in CRP.Nos.1396 & 1397 of 2020 & 774 & 775 of 2021 Mr.N.Muralikumaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sathish Rajan in CRP.Nos.966 of 2026, 2308, 2167, 2171, 2177, 2178, 2180, 2183, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2193, 2196, 2196, 2198, 2200, 2203 to 2205, 2209, 2295, 2299, 2301, 2305, 2307, 2404, 2408, 2413 to 2416, 2438, 2440, 2447 & 2448 of 2026

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitions in CRP.Nos.966 of 2026, 1393, 1395 to 1400 of 2020, 774 & 775 of 2021, 4037 of 2019, 2308, 2167, 2171, 2178, 2177, 2180, 2183, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2193, 2196, 2198, 2200, 2203 to 2205, 2209, 2295, 2299, 2301, 2305, 2307, 2404, 2408, 2413 to 2416, 2438, 2440, 2447 & 2448 of

2026, are at the instance of the State through the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, challenging the award of compensation in various LAOPs in respect of lands acquired for the purposes of forming a Highway, in and by two awards dated 10.12.2013 in Award No.12 of 2013 and 16.12.2013 in Award No.15 of 2013.

2. On the side of the claimants, CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914, 4920 of 2025, 3005 & 3006 of 2023 have been filed, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

3. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sathish Rajan, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel and Mr.P.S.Kothandaram, learned counsel for the land owners/claimants.

4. A dmitted facts are as follows:

(a) Lands belonging to the claimants were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for widening of the road from Singaperumal Koil to Redhills Road, passing through Sriperumbadur and Tiruvallur. Public notices under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act were issued on 17-08- 2010. The notification under Section 15(1) was issued on 25-05-2012. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of notification under Section 15(1), as well as public notices issued under Section 15(2) in August 2010.

(b) The Land Acquisition Officer scrutinized as many as 236 sale deeds between 27-08-2009 and 26-08-2010. Thereafter, on 20th June 2012, Section 15(1) notification for acquisition was issued and thereafter, reference under Section 21 of the Act was made and matters were referred to the Special Sub- Court, for determination of fair and just compensation payable to the landowners. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Land Acquisution Officer relied on a sale deed dated 20th October 2010 registered in Document No.7898 of 2010, as the data sale deed and fixed the market value at Rs.100/- and in such process, discarded the remaining 235 sale deeds that were in contention before the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the said fixation, the landowners sought for enhancement and matters were referred to the Reference Court under various LAOPs.

(c) Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on Ex.C1 sale deed dated 18-01-2010 in Document No. 219 of 2010, besides also, other sale deeds that were before the Land Acquisition Officer by way of data sales, but not considered.

(d) The Land Acquisition Officer examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents were filed on behalf of the State. The Reference Court found that the Land Acquisition Officer had erroneously rejected 235 documents, without any valid reasons and had fell in error in relying on one document alone, that too, which did not reflect the correct market value. The Reference Court relied on Ex.C1 sale deed dated 18-01-2010, which reflected a market value of Rs.935/- per sq.ft and proceeded to enhance the compensation. However, in respect of CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2025, the Reference Court took the market value at Rs.675/- per sq.ft, instead of Rs.935/- per sq.ft, as against which, the landowners, aggrieved by the same, have filed the above said four revision petitions, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, by taking the market value as Rs.935/- per sq.ft, instead of Rs.675/- per sq.ft.

5. In respect of the revision petitions filed by the State, as against the award of compensation to the other landowners, the State has challenged the determination of compensation at Rs.935/- per sq.ft, as well as Rs.675/- per sq.ft, contending that the data sale deed that has been relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is most appropriate and best suited document to reflect the correct and then prevailing market value.

6. In all other cases that have been filed by the claimants, the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, by a common judgment, enhanced the compensation for lands covered under Award No.15 of 2013 to Rs.935/- per sq.ft, considering Ex.C-9 marked in LAOP.No.109 of 2024, which is the very same document that has been relied on by the petitioners as Ex.C1 in CRP.No.4906, 4907, 4914 and 4920 of 2025. All these revision petitions are challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Special Sub- Court, LAOP Cases, Tiruvallur/ Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.

7. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General would firstly contend that lands that have been acquired were situate in two villages, namely Ekkadu Village and Thiruvallur Village and admittedly, Thiruvallur village is more developed. The Reference Court had awarded Rs.935/- per sq.ft while restricting the enhancement to Rs.675/- per sq.ft in respect of Ekkadu Village. However, it is the submissions of P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, referring to a plan showing the lay of the acquired lands that the document that has been relied on by the Reference Court to enhance the compensation to Rs.675/- and Rs.935/-, respectively, is beyond 1.6 kilometers and therefore, ought not to have been relied on in the first place.

8. Further, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General would also point out to the data sale deed, which has been relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is situate in much closer proximity to the lands acquired and therefore, it is the submission of the learned Additional

Advocate General that the Land Acquisition Officer, fixing Rs.100/- for Ekkadu Village and Rs.320/- for Tiruvallur Village was fair and reasonable. He would further state that it is not as if the 235 documents, which were available for scrutiny, had been discarded, without any reasons. In this regard, he takes me to the order of the Land Acquisition Officer and points out to the reasons assigned for rejecting the remaining 235 documents.

9. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that in respect of as many as 35 cases, the acquisition is under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013), Act 30 of 2013, whereas the remaining 10 odd cases fall for consideration under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this regard, he takes me through Section 114 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Repeals and Savings clause, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, dealing with the effect of repeal. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the compensation ought to have been awarded only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. He would therefore state that the enhancement could have, at best, been Rs.675/- per sq.ft and not Rs.935/- per sq.ft.

10. It is the further submission of Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General that the Reference Court has not considered any of the arguments of the State and has merely referred to the contentions of the landowners/claimants and proceeded to enhance the compensation. On that score also, he states that the impugned awards are liable to be interfered with. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, would also contend that the Reference Court has failed to provide for deduction at the rate of 50%, as required under the statute.

11. As regards the multiplier adopted, it is the submission of Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General that in terms of Schedule I and also the definition of “urban area” under Rule 2(n) of the 2017 Rules, the multiplier, which could have been adopted, was only 1 and not 1.25, as admittedly the lands were situate in a rural area and not in a Municipality or Town Panchayat.

12. As regards solatium, it is the submission of Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General that the Reference Court has awarded 12% on items 1 to 3 and should have awarded solatium only on item 1 and not in respect of the other awards of compensation under different heads.

13. Similarly, even with regard to interest, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that the approach of the Reference Court is erroneous, as it amounts to awarding cumulative interest under all heads. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, would therefore pray for the revision petitions filed by the State to be allowed and the revision petitions filed by the claimants to be dismissed.

14. Per contra, Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the some of the claimants, inviting my attention to Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013, as well as the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019, (Part II), would contend that when the State itself has taken a conscious decision to follow the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013, then it does not lie in the mouth of the State to now contend that the compensation will have to be calculated, only in terms of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. In this regard, Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Mohan Rao and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 696.

15. The learned Senior Counsel would also state that in respect of batch of 36 cases initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the matter reached the corridors of this Court and this Court held that the compensation will have to be arrived at, only based on the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013. The learned Senior Counsel also invited my attention to the order of this Court and would state that the said order has become final and even in the present revision petitions, according to the learned Senior Counsel, no grounds have been taken, challenging the order of this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

16. Referring to Section 26(1)(b), Mr.N.Murali Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel would state that even under the statutory scheme of Act 30 of 2013, a higher compensation is contemplated to be paid to the land losers and it is no longer a mandatory condition that the documents that are relied on should be in the same village and it is sufficient, if it is in the vicinity of the lands acquired. In this regard, he takes me through the evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court, where there is a clear admission that Ex.C9/Ex.C1 (sale deeds), which has been relied on by the claimants is situate within 1.6 kilometers. He would therefore state that when the officials themselves have admitted that the land, which is subject matter of Ex.C9/Ex.C1, is in contention being within 1.6 kilometers, then irrespective of the data sale deed narrowed down by the Land Acquisition Officer, reflecting a lower price, in the light of the settled dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, compensation should be awarded, based on the document, which reflects the higher value. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that even before the Reference Court, the official respondents did not exhibit any document, including even the data sale that has been relied on, to fix the value at Rs.100/- per sq.ft for Ekkadu Village and Rs.320/- for Tiruvallur Village.

17. As regards multiplier, Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel contends that admittedly, even according to the official respondents, the lands are situate in rural area and therefore, relying on the Government order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.(Ms).No.300, Revenue and Disaster Management (LA-1(1)) dated 20th September 2017, learned Senior Counsel contends that no error has been committed by the Reference Court in adopting the multiplier of 1.25. He would also contend that even with regard to the award of solatium and interest, the Reference Court has rightly found the claimants to be entitled to the awarded amounts and he would therefore state that there is absolutely no error or infirmity in the orders passed by the Reference Court, warranting interference in revision petitions.

18. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2023 would submit that all the lands have been acquired under two awards, namely Award Nos.12 & 15 of 2013, both being in December 2013. He would attack the calculations adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, by providing deduction for development, stating that since the purpose of acquisition was only for widening of highways, the question of any deduction does not arise, as the property is straight away being capable of being put to use for the purposes acquired. He further states that the Central Act 30 of 2013 came into force on 26.09.2013 and the same has been validated by the Tamil Nadu State Government by Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 (Act 38 of 2019), which has come into effect on 01.01.2019. He would therefore state that to rely on the provisions of the old Land Acquisition Act, cannot be justified and the Reference Court has rightly proceeded to decide all the matters under the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013.

19. As regards the rejection of 235 documents, it is the contention of Mr.B.Vijay, that one of the reasons for rejecting many of the data sales is that the value is high. He would therefore state that when the very purpose of the Land Acquisition Officer, scrutinizing relevant document in contention, is to arrive at the highest value, in order to benefit the land losers, the reasons assigned that the value reflected in several documents is high, could have never been a ground to reject or not look into those documents. He would therefore state that the very approach of the Land Acquisition Officer is clearly fallacious and against the well settled principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, reiterating time and again that the land losers will have to be given the best possible compensation, since their valuable immovable properties are being forcibly taken away for public purposes. He would also reiterate the submission by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the official respondents not even exhibiting the data sale deeds, on which the value of Rs.100/- for Ekkatu Village and Rs.320/- for Tiruvallur Village, came to be fixed.

20. As regards Ex.C1/Ex.C9, sale deeds, which have been relied on by the Reference Court, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel contends that not only there is an admission that the property, which is the subject matter of the said document, is situate within 1.6 kilometers, but, on the contrary, the official witness has clearly admitted to the fact that the property is well developed and therefore, the Reference Court fixing the compensation at Rs.935/- per sq.ft cannot be interfered with. He would further state that, that being the position in respect of the some of the revisions alone, by inadvertence, without any reasons assigned, the Reference Court has taken Rs.675/- instead of Rs.935/- per sq.ft, which is clearly and possibly an inadvertent error committed by the Reference Court, which certainly needs to be corrected. In this regard, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel states that there is no evidence on the side of the State that the cases in which Rs.675/- per sq.ft has been fixed, fall under any different or special category, which does not require the same value to be fixed, as in the other cases, namely Rs.935/- per sq.ft.

21. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and

Kashmir, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717, the decisions of this Court in The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Nallathangal Odai Reservoir Scheme Dharapuram and others Vs. Marimuthu and others, in Appeal Suit No.377 of 2022 dated 28.03.2025, K.B.Mahesh Vs. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Unit – IV, Kannam Kottai – Thervoy Kandigai Reservoir Scheme, Gummidipoondi Taluk @ Kavaraipetti, in Appeal Suit No.1091 of 2024 etc., batch dated 28.03.2025 and The Special Tahsildar (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Virdhachalam Vs. Lalithkumar in CRP.Nos.2834, 2835, 2836 & 2847 of 2022 dated 13.06.2025.

22. Taking me through the Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Mr.B.Vijay contends that the compensation has been rightly calculated in terms of Section 26 and no error has been committed by the Reference Court. He would also refer to Section 84, regarding adoption of multiplier and Section 27, which contemplates compensation for both land and building. He also takes me through Section 30 with regard to award of solatium and Section 80 with regard to payment of interest. He would further state that the Reference Court has however failed to incorporate the date of possession being taken over by the State, as it would be relevant for the purposes of calculation of interest. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel therefore prays for CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2023 to be allowed and the revision petition filed by the State to be dismissed.

23. In this regard, Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate was called upon to furnish the respective dates on which possession was taken over by the State from the claimants and he has also given the relevant details. He has also given the details with date of possession being taken over from the respective claimants. The details of which are set out as hereunder:

24. Mr.P.S.Kothandaram, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRP.Nos.3005 & 3006 of 2023 and 1st respondent in CRP.Nos.1396, 1397 of

2020, 774 & 775 of 2021 would adopt the arguments advanced by Mr.B.Vijay, since the case of these claimants also fall on the same footing. However, the learned counsel fairly brings to my notice that the claimants in CRP.Nos.3005 & 3006 of 2023 have already settled their claims with the State and therefore, no further orders are necessary in these revision petitions. However, the respondents in respect of CRP.Nos.1396 and 1397 of 2020 are revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.3005 and 3006 of 2023, seeking enhancement on the same lines, on which the revision petitioners in CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2025 are seeking enhancement.

25. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, for the State, Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sathish Rajan, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel and P.S.Kothandaram, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. I have gone through the entire records, including the typed set of papers filed in various revision petitions, as well as the orders passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, as well as the enhancement awarded by the Reference Court.

26. As regards the applicability of the provisions of the new Act, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.N.Muralikumaran and Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel, the State brought about Tamil Nadu Act 38 of

2019 with effect from 26.09.2013, styled as Tamil Nadu Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019. Under the said Act, Section 10 clearly makes the provisions of the Central Act 30 of 2013, applicable to land acquisition proceedings under the Highways Act, 2002, especially with regard to determination of compensation. Therefore, there is no gain say in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the cases should have been decided only under the provisions of the repealed Land Acquisition Act and not under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. The arguments advanced in this regard are therefore stands rejected.

27. Coming to the arguments with regard to enhancement of compensation from Rs.100/- to Rs.675/- in respect of lands situate in Ekkadu Village and from Rs.320/- to Rs.935/- insofar as lands in Tiruvallur village, it is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the value arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.100/- for Ekkadu Village and Rs.320/- for Tiruvallur village was based on most proximate data sale and the date of said document also made it relevant for being taken into consideration. He also referred to the layout sketch to reinforce his contentions that the lands in the said data sale was situate in very close proximity to the acquired lands and therefore, no error was committed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Having held that the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 would apply, referring to Section 26 of the Act, which deals with determination of market value of land by the Collector. Section 26(1)(b)

requires the Collector to adopt the average sale price for the similar type of land situate in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General that the sole data sale that has been relied on, out of 236 documents scrutinized by the Land Acquisition Officer, being situate closest to the lands acquired alone should form the basis for fixation of market value. In view of the provisions of the new Act, namely Act 30 of 2013, it is not necessary that the lands should be situate in the same village. As already stated herein above, even similar types of lands situate in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area can also be factored while arriving at the market value of the land.

28. In this regard, I have gone through the evidence adduced before the Reference Court. Firstly, though the Land Acquisition Officer has admitted to have scrutinized 236 documents, he has given bald, vague and generic reasons for rejecting 235 documents. As rightly pointed out by Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel, the mere fact that the sale consideration is high, cannot be a ground to reject such data sale, since the object of the Land Acquisition Act, especially the new enactment is to provide fair compensation to land losers. In any event, even the said document that is relied on to fix the value at Rs.100/- for Ekkadu Village and Rs.320/- for Thiruvallur village has not even been exhibited before the Reference Court.

29. Though even in these revisions strong reliance is placed on by the learned Additional Advocate General falling back on the value reflected in the said document, even from the very admission of the officer who was examined before the Reference Court, he has candidly admitted that the property is well developed and the document relied on by the claimants in Ex.C1/Ex.C9 is situate within 1.6 Kilometers from the acquired lands. Therefore, even assuming the document, based on which the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the value of Rs.100/- for Ekkadu Village and Rs.320/- for Tiruvallur, can be considered, when there is another document, which reflects a higher value and is also capable of being considered, then as held by this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the land losers should be given the benefit of higher compensation. In such circumstances, I do not find any error committed by the Reference Court in going by the value of land reflected in Ex.C1/Ex.C9.

30. In this regard, straight away, I can allow the revision petitions in CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2025 and CRP.Nos.3005 & 3006 of 2023, since after having enhanced the compensation to Rs.935/- per sq.ft, without any reasons whatsoever for similarly placed lands in these revision petitions, the Reference Court has fixed the value at Rs.675/- per sq.ft. No reasons have been assigned for such fixation as well. I probably feel that it is only an inadvertent error committed by the Reference Court. The petitioners in these six revision petitions are entitled to the very compensation awarded in the other claim petitions, which are subject matter of the revision petitions filed by the State and thus, the revision petitions in CRP.Nos.4906, 4907, 4914 & 4920 of 2025 and CRP.Nos.3005 & 3006 of 2023 are allowed in this regard. In view of the fair argument of Mr.P.S.Kothandaram, that in respect of CRP.Nos.774 & 775 of 2021 and 1396 & 1397 of 2020 since the land owners have already settled the claim dispute with the State, these revision petitions are dismissed, as settled out of Court.

31. Now coming to Section 27 of the Act, it provides for determination of the amount of compensation for the lands acquired to be on the basis of the market value and the Collector should also include all assets attached to the land. Therefore, the buildings that have been put up on the acquired lands will also have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the amount of compensation.

32. Under Section 30, solatium is to be imposed on the total compensation to be paid. Under Section 30(1) solatium amount equal to 100% of the compensation amount is to be awarded by the Collector. The explanation to Section 30 clarifies that solatium is, in addition to the compensation payable to the person, whose land has been acquired. Section 30(2) requires the Collector to issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and details of payment of compensation as specified in the First Schedule in Act 30

of 2013. Section 30(3) mandates the Collector, in addition to the market value of land provided under Section 26 to award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking of possession of the land whichever is earlier. In view of the above provisions, there is no quarrel with regard to the entitlement of the land losers for compensation for the land as well as the building wherever applicable, solatium, together with additional market value in terms of the statute itself.

33. Section 80 deals with payment of interest and in terms of Section 80, when the compensation amount is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, then the Collector is liable to pay the amount awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of taking possession, until the amount is paid or deposited. The proviso to Section 80 mandates that whatever compensation is not paid or deposited, within a period of one year from the date of taking possession, then the interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof, which has been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. It is in this regard that Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for some of the claimants insisted upon the Government Advocate to provide the details of the date of possession being taken, so that the actual amount of compensation

can be arrived at, considering the scope of Section 80. In view of the dates furnished by Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate, it is made clear that the land losers/claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9%. for the first year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum, till the date of payment of the compensation amounts to the claimants/land losers, from the respective dates of possession being taken, as furnished by Mr.P Sunil, learned Government Advocate, on instructions from the official respondents.

34. This leaves us with the last contention of the learned Additional Advocate General with regard to the multiplier to be adopted. Though the learned Additional Advocate General also advanced arguments with regard to adoption of multiplier at 1.25 being erroneous, firstly, I find that it is not even a ground raised in any of the revision petitions filed by the State. In any event, since the oral arguments have been advanced in this regard and have also been replied to by the claimants, I am also proceeding to deal with the same as well.

35. The G.O.(Ms).No.300, Revenue and Disaster Management (LA-I (1)), dated 20-09-2017, under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Central Act 30 of 2013, against serial number 2 of First Schedule to the Act, the Government of Tamil Nadu has notified the multiplier factor to be adopted. In cases where the distance of the project from urban area is within 30 kms, then the multiplier to be adopted in 1.25. Where the distance of the project from the urban area is beyond 30 kms and within 50 kms, it is 1.5 and when it is beyond 50 kms, it is

2. Curiously, the consistent case of the official respondents is that the acquired lands are situate in a rural area and when it comes to adoption of multiplier, for the purposes of reducing the compensation awarded, the State cannot fall back on the Government notification to contend that only if the acquired lands are within 30 km from urban areas, the multiplier adopted should be 1.25 and otherwise, it should be 1.

36. In this regard, for adopting the multiplier, the learned counsel for the claimants, Mr.B.Vijay, has relied on a batch of appeal suits decided by this Court on 28-03-2025 in AS No1091 of 2024 batch etc., where this Court falling back on the definition of “urban area” under clause (n) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2017, held that when the lands acquired are admittedly situate in villages and close to a Town Panchayat, the villages from where lands are acquired cannot be categorized as urban area, but, would continue to be rural areas.

37. Further, this Court referring to G.O.(Ms).No.300, Revenue and Disaster Management dated 20-09-2017, Gazetted on 21.09.2017, held that when the project villages fall under the category of rural areas, then in terms of First Schedule to Central Act 30 of 2013 r/w Section 30(2) of the same Act, the multiplier will have to be 1 to 2, based on the distance of the project from the urban area and therefore, the adoption of 1.25, as the multiplier for the said villages in question, situates in a Town Panchayat and also in the outskirts of Chennai city, being a mix of urban and rural characteristics, there was no error in applying the multiplier of 1.25, in terms of G.O(Ms).No.300 dated 20.09.2017. Applying the same analogy and ratio laid down by this Court to the facts of the present case, considering the admissions made by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Reference Court, with regard to the locational advantages of the acquired lands and the developments that have come up in and around the said lands, even though the subject lands may strictly fall within “rural area”, the application of multiplier is 1.25 is certainly not erroneous or perverse. Though the learned Additional Advocate General relied on G.O.Ms.No.300, Revenue and Disaster Management dated 20.09.2017, in and by which, Ekkadu village has been brought within CMDA limits and therefore would qualify to be urban area and only 1% will have to be applied, as already discussed herein above, this ground was never taken at any point of time, including in the grounds of revision petition and further, even according to the official respondents, the lands are admittedly situate in rural villages. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 21.10.2022 will have to be taken into account. In any event, the said Government order is of recent origin, whereas the awards have been passed way back in 2013 and therefore, the retrospective effect to G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 21.10.2022 cannot be given as well.

38. As regards the deductions towards development charges, though it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Reference Court has not provided for deduction, on account of development charges that will have to be incurred by the State, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, when the lands have been acquired only for road widening, there is no question of any special or extra expenditure required for development, since the lands can straight away be put to use for extending/widening the highway. Therefore, I do not see any error committed by the Reference Court in not providing for deduction towards development charges.

39. In fact, the Reference Court has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447 and C.R.Nagaraja Shetty (2) Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 75, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the deduction towards development will have to be made, only when the acquisition of lands is for the purpose of setting up of industries or housing or allied purposes and not in cases where the acquisition is for the purposes of formation of reservoir etc. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the arguments advanced on the side of the State with regard to no deduction bring provided while arriving at the compensation.

40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh’s case, referred herein supra, held that when the lands more or less situated nearby and the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners, unless there are strong reasons. I have already held that while awarding lesser amount of Rs.675/- per sq.ft, the Reference Court has not assigned any special reasons whatsoever and therefore, even applying the ratio laid down in Ali Mohammad Beigh’s case, the award of lesser compensation of Rs.675/- per sq.ft is erroneous and perverse and therefore, such of those land losers are also entitled to compensation at the very same rate of Rs.935/- per sq.ft. In fact, this Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of such rejection of sale exemplars, without any discussion or assigning valid reasons in Appeal Suit Nos. 1091 of 2024 batch etc., dated 28.03.2025.

41. This Court, in Special Tahsildar (LA), Virdhachalam Vs. Lalithkumar’s case, in fact, followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes’s case and C.R.Nagaraja Shetty’s case, and held that no deduction is required for the purposes of forming a Bypass road and there is no requirement for any internal development. This decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

42. In fact, this Court, in Rajendran Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) and another in CRP.(PD).Nos.2069, 2072 & 2074 of 2022, by order dated 27.07.2022, held that the new Act, namely Act 30 of 2013, alone would apply to awards that has been passed, subsequent to 26-09-2013 in the State of Tamil Nadu. Admittedly, the present awards are after the said date, namely 26-09- 2013. The said decision has also become final, with no further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in interpreting the Tamil Nadu Validation Act to hold that it is only the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 would apply and not the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

43. In G.Mohan Rao’s case, referred herein supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the argument that retrospectivity from 26-09-2013 was fatal to the 2019 Act, as on that date there was no Act 30 of 2013 in operation, since the Central Act 30 of 2013 came into operation on 27.09.2013 only and therefore, the State enactments would become repugnant, held that for the purposes of checking repugnancy, the relevant point of time would be the date of reckoning the date of assent and not the date of commencement and when underlying the purpose of retrospectivity is to cure, including validate certain transactions of the past, while making a law in the present and not to compete with the laws existing in the past at that point of time, the State legislature in its wisdom, thought it fit to provide benefits on par with Act 30 of 2013 Act and therefore, even though to operationalize 2019 Act from 26-09-2013, a day prior to the making of 2013 Act appeared anomalous, it does not make any impact on the validity thereof or its substance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the date has been chosen by the State legislature, only by way of abundant caution, that too, to overcome repugnancy corresponding to the date of commencement of 2013 Act. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in this case as well, the arguments of the State that the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 cannot be applied has to be straight away rejected.

44. However, I find force in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the methodology adopted by the Reference Court in awarding additional market value, even on solatium, is not in terms of the statute. Section 30 deals with award of solatium. In term of Section 30(1) the solatium has to be awarded on the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land loser. However, Section 30(3) specifically sets out that additional market value is payable only in respect of market value of the land provided under Section 26 and therefore, the award of additional compensation cannot include within its ambit a 100% solatium awarded by the Reference Court. Therefore, I have to necessarily partly allow the revision petitions by modifying the order of the Reference Court.

45. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the State are partly allowed and the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the claimants, excepting

CRP.Nos.774 & 775 of 2021 and 1396 & 1397 of 2020, which are dismissed as settled out Court, are also partly allowed, in the following manner:

(i) The claimants shall be entitled to a uniform market value of Rs.935/- per sq.ft.

(ii) The awards of compensation towards building and structures are confirmed.

(iii) The claimants are entitled to multiplier at 1.25 on the cumulative value of (i) and (ii) above.

(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation of 12% per annum on the cumulative value of (i) to (iii) above, from the date of notification of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. (In this regard, the details provided by Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate shall be taken into account for ascertaining the relevant date)

(v) The claimants are entitled to 100% solatium on the cumulative value of (i) to (iii) above and to this extent, the impugned judgments are modified.

(vi) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest at 9% per annum, for the first year, from the date of possession being taken from the claimants and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum, from the expiry of the first year, till the date of deposit of the cumulative value of (i) to (v) above.

(vii) It is needless to state that any compensation already deposited/paid to the claimants, shall be deducted and the balance compensation shall be deposited by the official respondents, within a period of 12 weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 13-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project -III, Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai -600 056.

2. The Devisional Engineer (Highways), Chennai Metropolitan Development and Plan (Division) Saidapet, Chennai -15.

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA Pre delivery order made in CRP No. 4907 of 2025 AND CMP Nos. 9579, 10434, 9951, 9568, 9593, 10316, 10300, 5206, 9965, 10315, 9526, 10313, 10318, 9560, 9563, 9582, 9960, 9574, 9972, 9605, 9956, 9501, 10428, 9975, 10305, 9558, 9508 & 9533 of 2026 CRP NO. 775 OF 2021,CMP NO. 9488 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10399 OF 2026,CMP NO. 9462 OF 2026,CMP NO. 9554 OF 2026,CMP NO. 10405 OF 2026,CMP NO. 9589 OF 2026,CRP NO. 3005 OF 2023,CRP NO. 3006 OF 2023,CRP NO. 4906 OF 2025,CRP NO. 4914 OF 2025,CRP NO. 4920 OF 2025,CMP NO. 24860 OF 2025,CMP NO. 24801 OF 2025,CMP NO. 24849 OF 2025,CRP NO. 2167 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2180 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2308 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2178 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2204 OF 2026,CRP NO. 966 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2177 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2183 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2307 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2196 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2299 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2413 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2203 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2301 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2189 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2440 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2438 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2171 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2191 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2404 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2416 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2448 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2198 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2205 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2209 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2190 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2447 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2305 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2414 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2408 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2193 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2295 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2415 OF 2026,CRP NO. 2200 OF 2026,CMP NO. 8114 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8106 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8107 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8119 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8109 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8111 OF 2020,CMP NO. 8116 OF 2020,CMP NO. 24804 OF 2025,CRP NO. 774 OF 2021,CRP NO. 4037 OF 2019,CMP NO. 26463 OF 2019,CRP NO. 1399 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1397 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1400 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1398 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1395 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1393 OF 2020,CRP NO. 1396 OF 2020 13-11-2026