Judgment :- The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit. 2. Sivagaminathan, the respondent herein, filed a suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any alteration in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said decree was confirmed by the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the appellant. Having lost in both the Courts below, the appellant has resorted to file this second appeal before this Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, is as follows: The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the vendor under a registered sale deed dated 28.11.1971. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants 1 and 2, who are the respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal, acquired an undivided 7 cents of land in the total extent of 20 cents mentioned in the schedule for Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the purpose of construction of houses, as per award No.2 of 1988 dated 23.7.1988. The award amount of Rs.2,323/- was deposited in Sub court, Tuticorin. Though acquisition was made only in respect of 7 cents, the second defendant, namely, the Special Tahsildar, has been making arrangements to take possession of the entire schedule property. The plaintiff approached the revenue authorities for sub division in respect of the remaining 13 cents. But his request was turned down. Then, he sent several notices to the defendants, but they have not complied with the requests of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the second defendant gave a false assurance that they would make allotment of a plot from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. They have also stated that the acquisition in respect of 7 cents was wrongly passed and it is purely a mistake. Hence, he filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any alteration in the schedule property measuring the remaining 13 cents. 4. They have also stated that the acquisition in respect of 7 cents was wrongly passed and it is purely a mistake. Hence, he filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any alteration in the schedule property measuring the remaining 13 cents. 4. The said suit was contested by the defendants through the written statement stating that though the Tahsildar handed over the possession to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board only 7 cents (0.03.0 hectares), the recitals of boundaries would relate to the entire extent of 20 cents and as such, the defendant is taking steps to pay the difference in the value for the rest of the land, which was incorrectly omitted in the award. 5. Based on the pleadings, necessary issues were framed. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the defendants, one Kasi Viswanathan, who is working as assistant in the revenue department, was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 6. The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the plaintiff's claim has been proved and as such he is entitled to the decree sought for in the suit. As indicated above, the said finding was confirmed in the appellate Court. 7. Mr.V.Karthigeyan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, while assailing the judgment impugned, would submit that the suit is not maintainable as against the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim possession of the property when the proceedings issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had become final. He would also strenuously submit that already possession of the entire property has been taken and houses have been constructed and as such, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction is not maintainable. He would cite three judgments rendered in LAXMI CHAND v. GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARARIA, (A.I.R. 1996 SUPREME COURT 523), STATE OF BIHAR v. DHIRENDRA KUMAR, (A.I.R. 1995 SUPREME COURT 1955) and S.P.SUBRAMANYA SHETTY v. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (A.I.R. 1997 SUPREME COURT 2076) to substantiate his points. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. 9. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. 9. According to the plaintiff, even though award was passed only in respect of 7 cents and the amount of award relating to the said 7 cents alone has been deposited, the defendants have been taking steps to acquire the entire property including the remaining 13 cents and trying to construct building, thereby making alterations in the structure. It is the specific stand taken by the appellant as defendant that in the award, it was wrongly mentioned as 0.03.0 hectares (7 cents) instead of 0.08.0 hectares (20 cents) and after the award, the amount of compensation has been deposited. It was further stated that the entire property has been acquired and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 18.9.88 itself and as such, the suit is not maintainable especially the final orders in the land acquisition proceedings cannot be questioned in a civil Court. 10. On going through the judgments impugned and also the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court referred to above, it shall be stated that the suit is not against the land acquisition proceedings; on the other hand, it is the plaintiff's case that the defendants were trying to acquire more land than the land in respect of which the award had been passed mentioning the measurements and the quantum. It is the stand of the defendants that the entire property has been acquired and possession has been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. But, it is an admitted fact that the award would indicate that 0.03.0 hectares (7 cents) alone were acquired and for the said acquisition of land, Rs.2,323/- has been deposited. It is not the case of the defendants that the defendants approached the authorities concerned to make the correction of the above and then, deposit the entire amount relating to 20 cents. As correctly pointed out by the trial Court in its detailed judgment, Ex.A.11 dated 13.1.92 would indicate that the defendants acquired 7 cents in S.No.132/2 as per the award proceedings dated 23.7.88 and the same was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The compensation of Rs.2,323/-, the value of 7 cents, had been deposited in Sub Court. As correctly pointed out by the trial Court in its detailed judgment, Ex.A.11 dated 13.1.92 would indicate that the defendants acquired 7 cents in S.No.132/2 as per the award proceedings dated 23.7.88 and the same was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The compensation of Rs.2,323/-, the value of 7 cents, had been deposited in Sub Court. Ex.A.12, the award proceedings dated 29.7.88 also would show that the acquirement was only in respect of lands measuring 0.03.0 hectares (7 cents). Ex.A.12 was in the year 1988 and Ex.A.11, the notice issued by the Tahsildar, was dated 13.1.92. So, on the basis of these documents, it was claimed by the plaintiff that only 7 cents of land was acquired and the same was handed over and not the entire property. 11. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire property was acquired and handed over. Both, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would give a factual finding that no materials were placed by the defendants to prove that the entire property measuring 20 cents have been acquired and handed over to the Housing Board. Therefore, I am unable to find any infirmity in the reasoning given by both the Courts below. 12. In my view, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court referred to above would not apply to the present facts of the case, as this is not a suit against the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law in this second appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed.