Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is focussed as against the common judgment and decree dated 17.09.1991 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore in L.A.O.P.Nos.349, 351 and 352 of 1984 respectively. 3. The Government published Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Notification on 04.03.1981 intending to acquire the land in Survey Nos.337/4 and 337/5 and 337/4 measuring an extent of 0.14 cents, 0.24 cents and 0.14 cents respectively in Narasimhapuram Village, Wallajah Taluk for the purpose of enabling BHEL to install its factory in Seekarajapuram Village, Wallajah Taluk. After complying with the procedure, the land acquisition officer passed the award assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.40/- per cent. The land owners, being aggrieved by it, got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, whereupon the compensation was enhanced from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.150 per cent. 4. Being dissatisfied with such enhancement, the land acquisition officer preferred these appeals on the following grounds among others. 5. The judgment and decree of the Court below is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of case. Absolutely there was no necessity to enhance the compensation to a tune of Rs.150/- per cent. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the compensation enhanced from Rs.40/-per cent to Rs.150/- per cent is just and proper? 7. At the hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader, in all fairness would submit that relating to acquisition of lands for BHEL and the consequent assessment of compensation by Sub Court, several appeals emerged. This is one such appeal. Already this Court decided many appeals confirming the enhancement awarded. 8. This Court has already decided similar matter and confirmed the assessment made in a sum of Rs.250/- per cent by the Sub Court. In A.S.No.852 of 1996, this Court on 211. 2007 confirmed the award for Rs.250/- per cent. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under: "6. It is not in dispute that the acquired land, as per the land acquisition proceeding is only a meagre extent of 8 cents, classified as wet land, as per revenue records. It is not in dispute that the acquired land is situated nearby the main road in a developed area. The relevant paragraphs are extracted here under: "6. It is not in dispute that the acquired land, as per the land acquisition proceeding is only a meagre extent of 8 cents, classified as wet land, as per revenue records. It is not in dispute that the acquired land is situated nearby the main road in a developed area. According to the claimant, who was examined as C.W.1, the acquired land is a fertile agricultural land fit to be converted into house site and she had claimed compensation for fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.500/-per cent. The trial court, considering the potential value of the acquired land situated nearby the railway station abutting the main road in a developed area has fixed the market value of the land only at Rs.250/- per cent. The acquired land is also a smaller extent of 8 cents. 7. Considering the evidence both oral and documentary and also the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no error or infirmity in fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.250/-per cent and accordingly, the respondents / claimants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) Notification till the date of taking over possession, 30% solatium and interest, as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the land acquisition officer fails. 8. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the land acquisition tribunal, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. " 9. A perusal of the cited judgment would highlight that this Court assessed per cent of land in a sum of Rs.250/-. Whereas in this case, the compensation was awarded by the Sub Court only in a sum of Rs.150/- per cent and hence, it warrants no interference. 10. 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.