Judgment : K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.110 of 1996 dated 31.1.2006 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. 2. The land in an extent of 0.4175 hectares in R.S.No.29/4 of Keelperumbakkam, Villupuram Taluk was acquired for the purpose of neighbourhood scheme of the requisition body – Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due process by award No.3/95 dated 4.1.1995 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7.35ps per sq.ft and the claimant not being satisfied with the award of compensation got the matter referred to the reference Court. The reference Court after taking into consideration of the material placed before it enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.ft., and granted other statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer considering that the award of Rs.25/- per sq.ft., is very high has filed this present appeal. 3. Notice has been ordered and notice has been duly served on the respondent and the respondent has also entered appearance through counsel. However, when the matter is taken up for orders, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/claimant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the Housing Board submits that that the point in issue in this appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 made in A.S.No.247 of 2004, wherein compensation for the adjacent land acquired for the very same purpose as that of the case on hand has been considered and in the said case, the land acquisition officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7.35ps per sq.ft., which has been enhanced by the reference Court at Rs.25/- per sq.ft. The Division Bench after taking note of all the facts and materials, which are identical to the present case, has considered the issue and taking note of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, ultimately reduced the compensation and fixed it at the rate of Rs.17/- per sq.ft., with all statutory components. That judgment would squarely cover the issue on hand. 5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record and also perused the judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 made in A.S.No.247 of 2004. 6. That judgment would squarely cover the issue on hand. 5. We heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record and also perused the judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 made in A.S.No.247 of 2004. 6. After perusal of the above referred judgment of this Court, we are satisfied that the case considered by the Division Bench of this Court is identical to the present case and the subject matter of the acquisition is also for Housing Board. In the case on hand, like that of the cited case, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation at Rs.7.35ps per sq.ft., and the enhanced compensation by the reference Court is also at Rs.25/- per sq.ft. Thus, the facts are similar and identical to that of the case on hand. 7. In the above said circumstances, in this case also, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the value of the land is fixed at the rate of Rs.17/- per sq.ft. by following the Division bench judgment of this Court in A.S.No.247 of 2004. Hence, the award and decree of the reference Court is modified to that extent by determining the value of the land at the rate of Rs.17/-per sq.ft. In respect of the other components, there is no modification. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not already deposited. The Government Pleader is entitled to special fee. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.