of the year 1991. An argument was raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that the judgment pertaining to A.S. No: 765 of 2005 relates to Thudiyalur Village whereas in the present case the Village concerned is Vellakinaru and though the Scheme is one and the same, they are two different villages and, therefore, for the present case we will have to only take into consideration the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 in which case the same village namely Vellakinaru has been considered and this Hon'ble Court has fixed the valuation at Rs.1,975/- per cent as compensation and this can be the only basis. In fact, he would also contend that in that judgment a further reference has also been made in respect of the notification dated 31.07.1995 for reducing the valuation from Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, when we analyse these two judgments, admittedly in the present case the village concerned is Vellakinaru and thus, the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 has to be taken for consideration. However, it is now stated across the bar that both Thudiyalur and Vellakinaru are adjacent villages and that a common scheme has been framed and in fact, the scheme carries both the village's name viz. Thudiyalur Vellakinaru Neighbourhood Scheme. For the notification issued in the year 1991 itself, this Hon'ble Court has fixed Rs.2,500/- per cent as compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent's argument is that atleast even if the relief cannot be granted as granted in A.S. No: 779 of 2005, the said enhancement of 10% per year which should be applicable after the other judgment had been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court in the second case namely A.S. No: 779 of 2005 can be granted. No doubt both the villages concerned are adjacent villages. Similarly it is no doubt true that the document which has been relied upon in this particular case namely A.S. No: 61 of 2002 had been produced before the Court and in that case a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per cent has been fixed as compensation. Ultimately, the lower Court having fixed the value at Rs. 3,500/- per cent, we may consider this case also in the light of the judgment rendered in A.S. No: 765 of 2005. But, inasmuch as the acquisition pertains to the very same village for valuation purposes we have to take the base price as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in respect of that village in A.S. No: 779 of 2005 at Rs.1,875/- per cent. We respectfully follow that judgment rendered by this Court in A.S. No: 775 of 2005. But taking into consideration the earlier notification, we only would like to follow the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sardar Jogendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 (17) S.C.C. 133, that 10% per year may be added for 3 years. If it is calculated as such for the 1st year for a sum of Rs. 1,875/- Rs. 188/- has to be added. So added, it would be Rs.2063/-. For the next year, another 10% namely Rs.207/- should be added with Rs.2,063/-. Then, it would be Rs. 2,270/-. For the last year, if a sum of Rs.227/- is added with Rs.2,270/- it comes to Rs.2,497/- which can be rounded off to Rs.2,500/-. This was the amount fixed as compensation in A.S. No: 779 of 2005. Since deduction have also been given at 32.5%, we are of the opinion that it is in confirmity with the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, this Court feels that at this point of time, it will be fair, reasonable and
