Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree (Award) of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 10. 1990 made in L.A.O.P.No.118 of 1984 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), BHEL Unit-IV, Ranipet, the then Arcot District now Vellore District is the appellant herein. The respondents are the land owners, from whom the land was acquired. Out of a total extent of land measuring 54.58 acres situated in Vadakal Village, Wallajah Taluk, North Arcot District (now Vellore District) acquired by the Government for the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet, an extent of 0.98 acres comprised in Survey No.74.4 is the property concerned in this appeal. The said land was admittedly an un-irrigated (Manavari land). The Land Acquisition Officer relying on a sale deed dated 26.03.1980 registered as document No.695 of 1980 on the file of the concerned Sub-Registrar fixed the market value of the acquired land concerned in this appeal at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per acre and awarded a total compensation of Rs.3414.80 paise which includes 15% Solatium and 4% interest. The respondents herein/the claimants received the compensation under protest and requested for a reference being made to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Sub Court, Vellore under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Before the Land Acquisition Officer and in the Sub Court, Vellore, the respondents herein/the claimants claimed that the land value should be fixed at the rate of Rs.750/-per cent and accordingly higher compensation should be awarded. The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial, relying on a common judgment of the said Court dated 212. 1988 in a batch of L.A.O.P.Nos.167/1983, 171/1983, 173/1983, 175/1983 and 182/1983 wherein the market value of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/5 acquired under the very same scheme for the very same purpose had been fixed at Rs.150/- per cent, fixed the market value of the land concerned in the present appeal at Rs.150/- per cent and directed payment of additional compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge has also directed payment of 30% Solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge has also directed payment of 30% Solatium and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum. 4. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment in so far as the fixation of the market value of the property concerned in this appeal at Rs.150/-per cent based on the awards passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.167/1983, 171/1983, 173/1983, 175/1983 and 182/1983, this appeal has been brought forth by the referring officer. 5. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal is:- 1) whether the learned Subordinate Judge has committed an error in fixing the market value at Rs.150/- per cent and awarding enhanced compensation? 2) Whether the amount awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge has got to be reduced? 6. This Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) appearing for the appellant. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents. The materials available on record were also perused. 7. Admittedly, the acquired land concerned in this appeal, comprised in Survey No.74/4 having an extent of 0.98 acres, was an un-irrigated dry land as on the date of 4(1) notification. The 4(1) notification was published on 25.02.1981. While rejecting the claim of the respondents/claimants to fix the market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.750/- per cent, the learned Subordinate Judge has also observed that the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was too low and that the selection of the data sale made by the Land Acquisition Officer to find out the market value was irrational. Under such circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge has relied on the judgment of the very same Court in a batch of L.A.O.Ps. concerning the acquisition of the adjacent lands for the very same purpose and under the very same scheme. A copy of the said judgment was produced and marked as Ex.A.1. The land comprised in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/5 in the very same Vadakal Village was the property concerned in the said batch of L.A.O.Ps. decided under Ex.A.1. The said land, according to the learned Subordinate Judge, was comparable in all respects to the land concerned in the present appeal viz., the land comprised in Survey No.74/4. 8. The land comprised in Survey Nos.116/2 and 116/5 in the very same Vadakal Village was the property concerned in the said batch of L.A.O.Ps. decided under Ex.A.1. The said land, according to the learned Subordinate Judge, was comparable in all respects to the land concerned in the present appeal viz., the land comprised in Survey No.74/4. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant informed the Court that the said rate fixed under Ex.A.1 was also confirmed by this Court in another appeal A.S.No.841 of 1996. A copy of the judgment of this Court pronounced on 210. 2007 in A.S.No.841 of 1996 has also been produced for the perusal of the Court. The land comprised in Survey Nos.121/5 was the acquired land concerned in A.S.No.841/1996. Admittedly the judgment under Ex.A.1 was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.1291 of 1998 by judgment dated 23.03.2001. Relying on the said judgment, the appeal concerning Survey Nos.121/5 was dismissed by this Court by the above said judgment dated 210. 2007. In view of the said judgment fixing a uniform rate of Rs.150/- per cent for un-irrigated dry land acquired under the very same scheme for the Boiler Auxiliaries Project of BHEL, Ranipet, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant herein conceded that the fixation of market value of the acquired property concerned in this appeal made by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be termed unreasonable and submitted that the challenge made to the same could not be successfully pressed. In view of the same, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no scope for interference with the fixation of the market value made by the learned Subordinate Judge for the acquired lands concerned in this appeal. The Court below has also rightly directed payment of solatium as 30% calculated on the market value. The direction of the Court below for payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for one year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% thereafter is also in accordance with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, no challenge is made to the same. Therefore, there is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Court below. Moreover, no challenge is made to the same. Therefore, there is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the award of the Court below. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court directing the payment of enhanced compensation based on the above said fixation of market value do not suffer from any defect or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the appellate power in this appeal. There is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.