Judgment :- N.V.Balasubramanian, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1983 made in L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1978 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the land of an extent of 11,000 sq.ft. in T.S.No.28/129/A-2 of Thirunagar Colony, Erode Town was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of construction of Post Office and Sub Post Master's Quarters. Necessary draft notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 15.12.1971, and after publication in the village on 4.2.1972 and after conducting relevant enquiry under section 5-A of the Act, the draft declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 31.3.1973. The Award Officer, after issuing necessary notices before passing the award, conducted the necessary enquiry and passed the award dated 19.8.1974. While passing the award, the Award Officer rejected some of the deeds of sale covered in item Nos.1,2, 3,4,5,6, 7 and 9 on the ground that some of them were not relevant and some of them relate to the sale of lands which were not situate proximate to the land which was acquired from the appellant herein and he relied upon the deed of sale dated 31.12.1971 and found that under the said sale deed, the property of an extent of 4096 sq.ft. in T.S.No.28/129A was sold and on the basis of the same, he fixed the value at Rs.1.46 per sq.ft. 3. The appellant herein was not satisfied with the amount awarded and sought for a reference and on reference, the referral Court, namely, First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, relied upon the sale deed dated 16.11.1970 (Ex.A-7) wherein land covered in the said sale deed was sold at the rate of Rs.5.26 per sq.ft. However, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the value at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. on the ground that the appellant/claimant in the written statement filed claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and awarded a total compensation of Rs.44,000/- with other statutory benefits. It is against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. However, learned Subordinate Judge fixed the value at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. on the ground that the appellant/claimant in the written statement filed claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and awarded a total compensation of Rs.44,000/- with other statutory benefits. It is against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the written statement filed on behalf of the claimant before the Sub Court, Erode wherein it is stated that fair compensation should be fixed at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and submitted that the above statement made in the written statement was a typographical mistake as the appellant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq.ft. Learned senior counsel referred to the order passed in the petition filed before this Court in C.M.P.No.3209 of 1995 dated 20.3.1995 and submitted that the appellant sought for amendment of written statement filed before the Sub Court, Erode to substitute the figure Rs.14/- instead Rs.4/- and the learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 20.3.1995 ordering amendment in the written statement by substituting the figure Rs.10/- instead of Rs.4/-. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel contended that the Sub Court has determined the compensation of Rs.44,000/- only on the basis that the appellant in the written statement has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. According to the learned senior counsel, the amount claimed at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. in the written statement was a mistake which was brought to the attention of this Court, and this Court has already ordered amendment of the written statement by substituting the figure of Rs.10/- instead of Rs.4/- per sq.ft., and therefore the amount of compensation determined at Rs.44,000/- by the Sub Court is not correct and the amount of compensation should be determined at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.ft. 5. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the order of this Court passed in C.M.P.No.3209 of 1995 permitting amendment in the written statement has to be reconsidered by this Court as it is clear from the written statement filed before the Sub Court by the appellant/claimant that the appellant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft., and the amount of compensation determined and awarded by the Sub Court is correct and does not warrant any interference. 6. We heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. The respondent herein has not challenged the judgment and decree of the Sub Court holding that the market value of the land as on the date of acquisition should be determined on the basis of sale deed dated 16.11.1970 (Ex.A-7). We find that the Sub Court was correct in rejecting other documents and proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of sale deed dated 16.11.1970. 7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Sub Court was correct in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft.? It is ex facie clear that the appellant/claimant in the written statement has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. However, it was sought to be amended on the score that the amount of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. claimed in the written statement was a mistake which was ordered to be rectified by this Court in C.M.P.No.3209 of 1995 by order dated 20.3.1995. However, We find from a reading of the order of the learned Single Judge made in C.M.P.No.3209 of 1995, the learned Judge has proceeded on the basis of concession, and a careful perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant before the Sub Court makes it clear that the appellant has claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. The appellant in paragraph-7 of the written statement referred to a deed of sale bearing document No.904/69 wherein land of an extent of 4,500 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.9,000/- and also referred to another deed of sale bearing document No.2143/69 wherein the land of an extent of 4,500 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10,000/-. The appellant after referring to those two sales has stated that compensation should be fixed at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. was sold for Rs.9,000/- and also referred to another deed of sale bearing document No.2143/69 wherein the land of an extent of 4,500 sq.ft. was sold for Rs.10,000/-. The appellant after referring to those two sales has stated that compensation should be fixed at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and claimed the total compensation at Rs.44,000/- for the land acquired. 8. We are of the view that the contents of the paragraphs 7 and 8 of the written statement have to be read together and if so read, it is quite evident that the appellant has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. which is reinforced by the fact that the appellant has claimed total compensation of Rs.44,000/- which was arrived at by multiplying the amount of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. by the total extent of the land acquired, namely, 11,000 sq.ft. If the appellant in the written statement has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq.ft., the total amount of compensation claimed would have been Rs.1,54,000/-, and not Rs.44,000/- and there is no acceptable explanation as regards the two mistakes in mentioning the amount either Rs.4/- or Rs.44,000/- in the written statement. On the other hand, we have already indicated that the appellant has referred to two sale deeds wherein lands were sold at Rs.2/- per sq.ft., and after referring to those two sale deeds, the appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and the appellant could not have claimed compensation at Rs.14/- per sq.ft. No doubt, it is true that this Court has ordered amendment in the written statement as sought for by the appellant. One other fact which is relevant is that the Sub Court determined the compensation at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. not only on the basis of the statement made in the written statement, but the Sub Court has taken into consideration other relevant factors, like location of the land and other advantageous features of the land acquired and fixed the compensation at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. 9. We are therefore unable to accept the submission of Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel that the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. by the Sub Court only on the basis of the claim of the appellant in the written statement at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. 9. We are therefore unable to accept the submission of Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel that the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. by the Sub Court only on the basis of the claim of the appellant in the written statement at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. It is no doubt true that the Court has to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired on the basis of the principles enumerated in section 23 of the Act and the statement of the appellant made in the written statement that the compensation should be fixed at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. is neither conclusive, nor final as it is the duty of the Court to determine the amount of compensation payable for the land acquired on the basis of the well established principles to determine the amount of compensation. The Sub Court, in the instant case, in the performance of its statutory duty, has arrived at the value of the land acquired on the basis of the principles governing the determination of the market value of the land taking into account the location of the land and other advantages which the land possessed. We find that the Sub Court has not merely gone by the statement of the appellant made in the written statement, but took into consideration all other relevant factors also in determining the compensation at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. and the correct procedure has been followed by the learned Subordinate Judge. We are of the view that the Sub Court would not have ordered a greater sum than that was awarded even if it had proceeded on the basis that a sum of Rs.14/- per sq.ft. was claimed as compensation in the written statement of the appellant. Though the amount of Rs.4/- in the written statement was ordered to be substituted by Rs.10/- by an order of this Court, we are not inclined to go into the correctness of the same at this stage, yet, we are of the view that the compensation determined by the Sub Court at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. is quite reasonable considering the location of the land acquired and other physical features of the land and other advantages which the land enjoyed. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Sub Court. is quite reasonable considering the location of the land acquired and other physical features of the land and other advantages which the land enjoyed. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Sub Court. However, it is made clear that the appellant is entitled to all statutory benefits that are available to him under the law and the Sub Court is directed to determine the statutory benefits on the basis of the compensation amount payable to be determined at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. for the land acquired. 10. The result is, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.