Judgment :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment in LAOP.No.28 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. 2.About 1.07.05 hectares of land in S.No.22/2b (0.55.5 hectares), S.No.23/2A (0.75. hectares) and S.No.24/1 (0.36.5 hectares) of lands were acquired by the Government for providing house plots for landless people belonging to Most Backward Class (for barbers and washermen). 3.The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the formalities, had published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Official Gazette on 012. 1993. On the basis of the data land, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation as Rs.49,400/- per acre (Rs.494/- per cent). Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant had preferred objection before him, which was referred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as C.W.1 besides examining one Elango as C.W.2 and one Sivalingam as C.W.3. On the side of the claimant Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.11 were marked. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked and the Special Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1. After meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary and after taking into consideration the submissions made by the Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the claimant, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has enhanced the compensation from Rs.494/- per cent to R.700/- per cent, which necessitated the Government to prefer this appeal. 5.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the enhanced compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.28 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, for the lands acquired by the Government in S.No.22/2B, 23/2A and S.No.24/1 in Sunnalampatty Village, Uthangarai Taluk, is exorbitant and is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal. 6.Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the side of the claimant Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.11 were relied upon. Admittedly Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Gazette on 012. 1993. Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.11 are executed before 4(1) Notification. S.No.33/2A is situated adjacent to the lands acquired by the Government as seen from Ex.R.3-plan and the lands acquired under S.No.22/2B, S.No.23/2A and S.No.24/1 are adjacent lands. Admittedly Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Gazette on 012. 1993. Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.11 are executed before 4(1) Notification. S.No.33/2A is situated adjacent to the lands acquired by the Government as seen from Ex.R.3-plan and the lands acquired under S.No.22/2B, S.No.23/2A and S.No.24/1 are adjacent lands. Under Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.11 about 1500 sq.ft of land was sold for nearly Rs.21,000/-. Even as per Ex.R.2-list of sale deeds produced on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer also, as per Sl.No.11, 12, 13, 14 to 22, the land in S.No.38/2A has been sold at the rate of Rs.1,74,400/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Tribunal after considering the potentiality of the lands sold under those sale deeds and also the lands acquired, under the award thought it fit to enhance the award amount and accordingly enhanced and fixed the award amount from Rs.494/- per cent to Rs.700/- per cent. (Rs.70,000/-per acre). Even though the claimant has produced Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.11 to show that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is far below than the actual value of the lands acquired, on the basis of the sale deeds Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.11 he has not preferred any cross-appeal. The learned Tribunal has rejected the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the data land taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the compensation for the land acquired by the Government is not fit for construction, whereas the land acquired by the Government in S.No.22/2B, S.No.23/2A & S.No.24/1 are fit for construction and that is why the Government has acquired the lands for constructing houses for the landless people, who belong to Most Backward Class. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.28 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, which is neither illegal nor infirm warranting any interference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly. 7.In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment in LAOP.No.28 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri. Time for deposit one month from this date. No costs.