Judgment :- When the matter has come up before me for hearing C.M.P.No.9347 of 2005 in A.S.No.39 of 2001, both the sides agreed for disposal of the main appeal itself. Hence, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1997 passed in LAOP No.10 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. A resume of facts that are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 07.01.1981 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 5 acres and 15 cents in Survey No.762, Avalapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 30.04.1993 assessing compensation in a sum of Rs.55/-per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the claimant one Muniappa examined himself as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.55/- per cent to Rs.860/- per cent. 5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Courts assessment of Without any basis, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation, which warrants interference. compensation from Rs.55/- per cent to Rs.860/- per cent is justifiable and proper. 7. At the outset itself, the learned counsel for the land owners would cite a decision of this Court rendered in A.S.No..1223 of 1994 and etc. batch dated 16.09.2003 and develop his argument to the effect that the said judgment of this Court emerged relating to one other piece of land covered under the same Section 4 (1) Notification relating to this case. 8. batch dated 16.09.2003 and develop his argument to the effect that the said judgment of this Court emerged relating to one other piece of land covered under the same Section 4 (1) Notification relating to this case. 8. A perusal of the cited judgment would highlight that earlier those appeals were filed as against the order of the Sub Court in LAOP No.171 of 1986 and in that, this Court assessed per cent of land in a sum of Rs.1,000/-and accordingly, passed the judgment. Whereas in this case, the compensation was awarded by the Sub Court only in a sum of Rs.860/- per cent and hence, it warrants no interference. 9. In view of the above this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs.