Judgment :- 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.215 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode reversing the Judgment and decree in part and confirming the rest of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1277 of 1990 on the file of II Additional District Munsiff Court, Erode. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the following relief: (i) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to cancel the grant of sites numbered as 1, 2, 3 and 30 in the layout of S.F.Nos.90/30-B and 90/1-B of Nasianur Village in Erode Taluk (Amended as per order in I.A.No.99/96 dated 17. 96); (ii) for a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from granting the 5 sites marked as F-31 in the layout of SF.No.90/3-B of Nasianur Village in Erode Taluk (Amended as per order in I.A.No.99/96 dated 17. 96); (iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to provide a bridge or culver to enable mechanised transport like tractors, trailers, lorries and carts, cattle and men to pass through from SF No.90/3-C to SF No.90/1-B of Nasianur Village and (iv) for payment of cots by the first defendant. 3. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows:- (i) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 owned shares in SF.90/3 of an extant of 62. 0 hectares in Nasianur Village of Erode Taluk. The fourth plaintiff owns SF Nos.93, 94 and 95 in the same Village. The first defendant acquired an extent of 62. 0 hectares out of SF No.90/3 aforesaid for granting house-sites to the local Adi Dravidars. (ii) According to the plaintiffs, in so acquiring, the Government has left a strip of land south and east of the acquired portion for carts, cattle, men and other mechanised transport like tractors with trailors and lorries. After such acquisition, SF No.90/3 was sub divided into 3A, 3B, and 3C. SF No.90/3B is the portion acquired by the first defendant. SF No.90/3A is the cultivable portion left with the plaintiffs 1 to 3 after acquisition. SF No.90/3C is the strip of land left out of acquisition to serve as a pathway for access to and from SF Nos.90/3A, 93, 94 and 95. (iii) According to the plaintiffs, strip of land left out of acquisition to serve as a pathway measures 7 metres width. SF No.90/3C is the strip of land left out of acquisition to serve as a pathway for access to and from SF Nos.90/3A, 93, 94 and 95. (iii) According to the plaintiffs, strip of land left out of acquisition to serve as a pathway measures 7 metres width. While laying out the plots, the width of the pathway has been reduced to 12 feet. (iv) According to the plaintiffs, on the west of SF No.90/3 is a branch canal of the Lower Bhavani Project Canal. If the plaintiffs are to cultivate SF Nos.90/3A, 93, 94 and 95, the pathway must by of sufficient width i.e., atleast 7 metres and there must be a bridge at the point where 90/3C meets the Canal Poramboke to cross the branch canal. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant has not made any provisions for such bridge. (v) According to the plaintiffs, the strip of poramboke in SF No.90/1B in line with SF No.90/3C has also been laid out into three house-sites and numbered as 1, 2 and 3. The said house sites were allotted to defendants 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The house-site numbered as 30 was allotted to 5th defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants 2 to 5 are making constructions on the sites allotted to them. If they construct houses, the plaintiffs cannot make use of SF.No.90/3C for taking carts and other recognized transports. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. 4. The brief facts of the first defendant are as follows: (i) According to the first defendant, the land acquisition was initiated under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in R.S.No.90/1B measuring 0.13.0 hectares and 90/3B measuring 0.41.5 hectares of land in Nasiyanur Village, Erode Taluk for the provision of house sites to the Adi Dravidars of Nasiyanur. The land in R.S.No.90/1B measuring 0.13.0 hectares and R.S.No.90/3 measuring 62. 0 hectares were sub divided. The declaration under section 6 was approved and the award was passed on 27. 1990 with a direction to deposit the award amount in civil deposit in favour of Subordinate Judge, Erode. The possession of the land in RS.No.90/1B and R.S.No.90/3B was surrendered by the land owners. The lay outs were prepared as per the instructions prescribed and pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries on 29. 1990. Necessary changes have also been made in the Village and Taluk accounts as Natham Poramboke. The possession of the land in RS.No.90/1B and R.S.No.90/3B was surrendered by the land owners. The lay outs were prepared as per the instructions prescribed and pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries on 29. 1990. Necessary changes have also been made in the Village and Taluk accounts as Natham Poramboke. (ii) According to the first defendant, the site Nos.1, 2, 3 and 31 are in S.Nos.90/1B and 90/3B. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs have no right over the acquired land. Further, according to the first defendant, the land in RS No.90/1B was not used by the plaintiffs as pathway even before the land acquisition proceeding was initiated. Hence, according to the first defendant, their plea to cancel the house site Nos.1, 2 and 3 in R.S.No.90/1B is unjust and unreasonable. Further, R.S.No.90/3C is a patta land in which the Government have no right. (iii) According to the first defendant, if the plaintiffs want more facilities they can utilise their adjoining patta land 91 and 94 for widening the pathway. According to the first defendant, there is pathway on the canal in R.S.No.90/2 which is being used by the plaintiffs. That the canal portion is covered by stone slabs, to connect the highways road in R.S.No.89 and the fields in S.Nos.90/3A, 90/3C, 86, 94. 91. etc., hence, according to the first defendant, there is no need to provide pathway in R.S.No.90/1B, which is acquired land after paying land cost. According to the first defendant, pathway was not reduced or obstructed as stated by the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs are using the existing pathway running from the main road in R.S.Nos.89, 90/3A, 90/3C crossing R.S.No.90/2 channel i.e. field bothi which was covered with stone slabs to other lands. Therefore, there is no need to construct a new bridge across the field bothi by cancelling the site Nos.1, 2, 3 and 31 to reach the Highways road in R.S.No.92, when there is existing pathway facilities in R.S.No.90/2 to connect R.S.No.89 to 90/3A etc. (iv) According to first defendant, the lay outs were prepared within the acquired portion which is acquired for the provision of house site to the Adi Dravidars after paying the land costs. The land owners received the compensation to their portions of land which was acquired through court. The first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. (iv) According to first defendant, the lay outs were prepared within the acquired portion which is acquired for the provision of house site to the Adi Dravidars after paying the land costs. The land owners received the compensation to their portions of land which was acquired through court. The first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Before the trial court, 3rd plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. On the side of the defendants, 2 witnesses were examined and no document was marked. The trial court, after taking in to consideration the oral and documentary evidence of both sides, dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment and degree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.215 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Erode and the lower appellate court also after taking into consideration the materials available on record modified the Judgment and decree by granting a decree for permanent injunction in respect of R.S.No.90/3C restraining the defendants from reducing the width of the common pathway. The lower appellate court confirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial court in other aspects. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts below, the plaintiff have filed the above second appeal. 8. Heard Mr. D. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Muthian, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent. 9. At the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the above Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- a). Whether the lower appellate Court while conceding the Appellants/Plaintiffs right of 7 metre (22 feet) width of pathway that runs in S.F.No.90/3-C which property belongs exclusively to the appellants/plaintiffs, is correct to hold that the preset 12 feet width pathway should be maintained and should not be further abridged by the defendants? b) Whether the lower appellate courts approach is perfunctory and the conclusion has been reached on a misconception of legal position? c) Whether the lower appellate court is correct is assuming that SF No.90/3C also was acquired by the defendant and proceeded on that basis? (d) Can the lower appellate court allow the first defendant to encroach on the plaintiffs absolute property in S.F.No.90/3C without due process of law and grant patta to defendants 2 to 4 and allot house site? c) Whether the lower appellate court is correct is assuming that SF No.90/3C also was acquired by the defendant and proceeded on that basis? (d) Can the lower appellate court allow the first defendant to encroach on the plaintiffs absolute property in S.F.No.90/3C without due process of law and grant patta to defendants 2 to 4 and allot house site? e) Whether the courts below failed to consider the necessity of providing a Bridge over the Lower Bhavani Branch canal in S.F.No.90/2 by the first defendant for the plaintiffs to take Cart, Lorry Tractor and other mechanized vehicles from 90/3A through S.F.No.90/3C, 90/2 and 90/1B to reach S.F.No.91, 93 and 94 while the acquisition of the lands were taken by the first defendant?" 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower appellate court having found that the Appellants have right over 7 metres (22 feet) width pathway in S.F.No.90/3C, ought to have granted degree for the same extent. The learned counsel also submitted that the lower appellate court assumed that SF No.90/3C was also acquired by the first respondent and proceeded on that basis. The learned counsel also contended that the first defendant encroached the plaintiffs absolute property in S.F.No.90/3C without due process of law and granted patta to defendants 2 to 4. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no necessity for providing a Bridge over the Lower Bhavani Branch canal in S.F.No.90/2 by the first defendant for the plaintiffs to take Cart, Lorry Tractor and other mechanized vehicles from 90/3A through S.F.No.90/3C, 90/2 and 90/1B to reach S.F.No.91, 93 and 94. 11. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that since the land was acquired by the first respondent and the land owners have received the compensations to their portion of land, the appellants cannot question the grant of patta to Adi Dravidars in the acquired land now. 12. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it could be seen that the land was acquired for allotting house-sites to Adi-dravidars. The land owners/appellants have also received the compensation for the acquired lands. The Appellants having received the compensation for their land, they have no right to prevent the allotment of house sites to poor Adi-dravidars in the locality. The land owners/appellants have also received the compensation for the acquired lands. The Appellants having received the compensation for their land, they have no right to prevent the allotment of house sites to poor Adi-dravidars in the locality. Further, the sub division was done in SF.No.90/3C only with the consent of the appellants. The first respondent, acquired the lands from the appellants and payed compensation to them and allotted the house sites to poor Adi Dravidars in the locality. 13. In the above circumstances, the appellants cannot ask for cancellation of the patta issued to the respondents 2 to 5. The Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the suit property found that the existence of common pathway in R.S.No.90/3C. The lower appellate court granted a decree for permanent injunction in respect of pathway in R.S.No.90/3C. The first respondent did not file any appeal as against the grant of decree in respect of pathway in R.S.No.90/3C. Therefore, the decree in respect of pathway have become final. 14. Therefore, I find no ground much less substantial question of law to interfere with the findings of the courts below. The above second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the above Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.