Judgment : Per V. PERIYAKARUPPIAH, J This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award passed by the lower Court in L.A.O.P. No.9 of 1998 referred under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act. 2. The lands in R.S. No. 153/2-B corresponding to S. No. 754/3 part, 723/1, 723/2, 723/4, 723/5 and 735 part measuring an extent of 31A 20 Cs in Kottucherry village of Kottuchery commune, Karaikkal Taluk, Union of Pondicherry was acquired along with other properties for the purpose of extending the channel Nana Vaikal at Kottucherry Commune which required improvements for the public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer had specified with the title of the claimant in respect of 21 A 80 Ca on the basis of the partition deed in between the claimant and his brothers taken place in the year 1955 and had awarded compensation to the said extent of land and for the balance extent of 9A 40 Ca, the Land Acquisition Officer had come to a conclusion that no other person reported claiming the said extent of property. He would again refer that the present claimant as the fourth respondent in the said proceedings had claimed the balance extent of land as belonging to him. But the Land Acquisition Officer did not see that he is entitled to the said balance extent of the property. Therefore, he had referred to the Tribunal under Section 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to decide the entitlement of the balance award amount in favour of the real owner of the acquired property. 3. On such referral, the Land Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal had taken reference in L.A.O.P. No. 9 of 1998 and had examined the claimant as R.W.1 and admitted Exhibits B-1 and B-2 as documentary evidence of the claimant and had come to a conclusion that the claim of the fourth respondent/claimant was not proved and, therefore, dismissed the said claim. Aggrieved against the said order of lower Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant/4th respondent before the lower Court. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the claim of the appellant over the title of remaining extent of 0.09.40 hectares of land is liable to be set aside or not. 5. Heard Mr. T. Susindran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the claim of the appellant over the title of remaining extent of 0.09.40 hectares of land is liable to be set aside or not. 5. Heard Mr. T. Susindran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Natarajan, the learned Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2. There is no appearance for R3 to R5. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent/claimant would submit in his argument that the lower Court had not considered the case of the claimant properly and had dismissed the claim without any basis. He would further submit that the lower Court had not approached the case of the claimant with the proper preception of the partition deed produced in Exhibits B-1 and B-2 but had wrongly come to decision both on facts and law. He would again submit that no other person has got title and possession in the said S. No. and its extent except the claimant and it was not considered by the lower Court. He would further submit that the claimant had obtained title through partition deed Exhibits B-1 and B-2 and the extent given in different versions should have been compared with the boundaries of the land possessed by the claimant and the lower Court should have accepted that the balance extent of land in the same S. No. was belonging to claimant. He would further submit that the view taken by the lower Court with regard to the partition deed Exhibit B-1 was not correct and the lower Court had simply referred to the measurement alone when no other person has claimed the title and possession over the said balance extent. He would further submit that as per the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit B-1, the balance extent of 0.09.40 hectares was also covered and therefore, the claimant should have been found to be the true owner of the balance extent. He would further submit that the doctrine of estoppels applied by the lower Court against the claimant is not sustainable in view of the settled position of law that boundaries will prevail over measurement in any document when controversies are in respect of measurement of the land. He would further submit that the doctrine of estoppels applied by the lower Court against the claimant is not sustainable in view of the settled position of law that boundaries will prevail over measurement in any document when controversies are in respect of measurement of the land. He would further submit that the lower Court had not applied the concept properly but had failed to find the claimant as the true owner and wrongly dismissed the claim of the claimant. Therefore, he would request the Court to set aside the order passed by the lower Court and to allow the appeal. 7. The learned Government Pleader, Pondicherry would submit in his argument that the claimant has laid his claim over the balance extent of the property measuring 0.09.40 hectares in S. No. 153/2B of the said village on the foot of Exhibit B1 partition deed which took place in the year 1955 and in the said document, it has been categorically mentioned that the 4th respondent/claimant before the lower Court was entitled to only an extent of 21A 80 Ca. he would further submit that the land Acquisition Officer had accepted the said measurement and accordingly, awarded the compensation to the claimant by holding that no other person claiming the balance extent of 0.09.40 hectares out of the total extent of 31A 20 Ca. The lower Court had correctly applied the principle of estoppel since the claimant was not entitled to the property in S. No. 153/2 B in the said village more than that the extent mentioned in the document, namely, 21A 80Ca. He would further submit that the claimant had not spoken to the effect that he is entitled the entire extent of 31A 20Ca in 153/2B. He would, therefore, submit that the award and judgment passed by the lower Court is based upon sound principle and therefore, it need not be set aside and thus, the appeal may be dismissed with costs. 8. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both sides. 9. The admitted facts in this case would be that the land in S. No. 153/2B of the Kottucherry village in Kottu commune of Karaikkal Taluk was acquired along with other lands for the purpose of extending of Nana vaikkal in Kottucherry commune. The claimant/4th respondent was referred as the owner for S. No. 153/2B. 9. The admitted facts in this case would be that the land in S. No. 153/2B of the Kottucherry village in Kottu commune of Karaikkal Taluk was acquired along with other lands for the purpose of extending of Nana vaikkal in Kottucherry commune. The claimant/4th respondent was referred as the owner for S. No. 153/2B. According to the revenue documents, the extent of the property in S. No. 153/2B was considered as 21 Ares 80 Ca. The Land Acquisition Officer had, therefore, raised a doubt as to the ownership of the remaining extent of 0.09.40 hectares of the land in the R.S. No. 153/2B. Indisputably, the name of the claimant/ 4th respondent was shown as the owner of the land in S. No. 153/2B. However, an extent of 9A 40 Ca were found excess in the said S. No. and the claimant was not found entitled to. Now, we have to see whether the claimant/ 4th respondent was entitled to the said excess land as per the partition deed Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-20 is the Tamil Translation copy of Exhibit B-1. There is no dispute about the derivation of title of the claimant/4th respondent through the partition deed Exhibit B-1. According to the said document, the extent of the property was described as follows in Tamil: TAMIL 10. On a carful perusal of the description of the Land, the extent is shown as 21A 80 Ca or 1 Mah 62 Kuzhies or 61/64 as per Cadastre plan and an extent of 3 Mah as per measurement. The said extent was bounded on the north by Nagapillai Tharisu, South by path way, East by Ramasamy Iyenger and west by Muthusamy Pillai. In the said description, we can find three versions of measurements, namely, 21A 80 Ca, 1 Mah 62 Kuzhies 61/64 as per Cadastre plan, and 3 Maha as per the physical measurement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the lower Court had taken one of the extents at 21A and 80Ca as the correct measurement and had found that the remaining extent was not belonging to the claimant/4th respondent. The lower Court had found that the claimant/4th respondent cannot be the owner of the balance extent of land, as he was stopped from claiming more than 21A 80Ca as mentioned in the said document. The lower Court had found that the claimant/4th respondent cannot be the owner of the balance extent of land, as he was stopped from claiming more than 21A 80Ca as mentioned in the said document. The lower Court did not see that no other person has claimed the said extent except the claimant/4th respondent. 11. In the evidence of R.W.1, the claimant, he had categorically spoken to the fact that the he was having possession of 3 Mahs of land in S. No. 153/ 2B and out of the said 3 Mahs, an extent of 2.34 Mahs alone were acquired. He would also speak to the effect that there is nobody claiming the said property and he was the owner of the entire extent in S. No. 153/2B as per partition deed Exhibit B-1. The lower Court had not considered the extent of land given as 3 Mahs which is equivalent 300 Kuzhies. However, an extent of 21A and 80 Ca of land were alone found to have been entitled to the claimant. The said decision of the lower Court is patently wrong since there are two more different extent of lands given in the said document. Exhibit B-1 was marked in order to find out the true owner and ownership of the balance extent of 9A 40 Ca out of the acquired lands. The description of the property ought to have been carefully understood. Fortunately, distinct and definite boundaries are given in the said document. It is a settled law from the period of privy council till today that the boundaries would prevail over the measurement or a S. Nos whenever controversies have been raised in respect of the extent of land in the property. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the said position of law firmly in the case between Subhaga v. Shoba (2006) 5 SCC 466 : (2007) 7 MLJ 826. The relevant passage would run as follows at p. 828 of MLJ: “6. …A property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrpancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. …A property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrpancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail. There was no occasion to spin a theory that it was necessary in this suit to survey all the adjacent lands to find out whether an encroachment was made in the land belonging to the plaintiff. 12. Therefore, the boundary description mentioned in Exhibit B-1 are important to find the title and ownership of the claimant/ 4th respondent in respect of the remaining extent of 9A 40 Ca in S. No. 153/2B. Accordingly, the whole extent of land in the S. No. 153/2B was shown to belong to the claimant as per boundary descriptions. The measurement of the property in S. No. 153/2B was differently mentioned in the said partition deed Exhibit B-1. Admittedly, the claimant was shown to be the owner of S. No. 153/2B in the revenue records. Therefore, the different measurements mentioned in Exhibit B-1 cannot be the actual extent of land held by the claimant. The application of doctrine of estoppel against the claimant on the strength of one of the measurements, namely, 21A 80Ca stated in Exhibit B-1 is not correct. Therefore, the remaining extent of the land, namely, 9A 40Ca, admittedly, situate in S. No. 153/2B could be considered as the extent of the land described within the boundaries mentioned therein, when especially nobody is claiming the said extent of land except the claimant/4th respondent. 13. I could therefore see that the rejection of claim of ownership of the balance extent of land through Exhibit B-1 was not considered by the lower Court properly and, therefore, the judgment and award passed by the lower Court are liable to interfered. 14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I could find that the claimant/4th respondent, namely, the appellant is entitled to the balance extent of 9A 40 Ca in S. No. 153/2B. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the reference is ordered in favour of the claimant/4th respondent (appellant herein). 15. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the reference is ordered in favour of the claimant/4th respondent (appellant herein). 15. In fine, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the lower Court. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.