JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred under Order 41, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2001 passed in CMA No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore in partly reversing the order dated 19.03.1996 passed in proceedings No.17/95-96 on the file of the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravida Welfare, Vellore.) 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2001 passed in CMA No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, in partly reversing the order dated 19.03.1996 passed in proceedings No.17/95-96 on the file of the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravida Welfare, Vellore. 2. The substantial questions of law raised in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are that whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in rejecting the Exs.A-1 and A-2; whether the lower Appellate Court was correct in not following the guidelines with respect to valuation of property; whether the lower Appellate Court was right in rejecting Ex.P-1, which came into existence 4 years prior to the acquisition proceedings and when no document had been filed to doubt its genuineness; and whether the lower Appellate Court was correct in rejecting Ex.P-2, which had shown the gradual increase in the rate of the properties. 3. A perusal of the abovesaid substantial questions of law reveals that all are relatable to the factual matrix of the case, which were already adjudicated by the first Appellate Court elaborately. There is no acceptable substantial question of law raised in the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. However, perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court reveals that all such documents, including Exs.A-1 and A-2 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 were considered by the first Appellate Court for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. 4. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of Rs.575/- per cent and the said compensation was enhanced by the first Appellate Court as Rs.1,000/- per cent. The land acquired was measuring 2 acres and 0.8 cents. The findings, in this regard, are made in paragraph-11 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court and the same reads as under:- “11. TAMIL” 5. The land acquired was measuring 2 acres and 0.8 cents. The findings, in this regard, are made in paragraph-11 of the judgment of the first Appellate Court and the same reads as under:- “11. TAMIL” 5. The above findings of the first Appellate Court reveal that the documents, which all are preferred by the appellants in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, are considered and accordingly, an enhancement was granted. Thus, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, seeking further enhancement, deserves no further consideration. 6. This apart, the appellants could not able to raise any substantial questions of law, which deserve further adjudication and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2001 passed in CMA No.19 of 1996 by the learned Sub Judge, Vellore stands confirmed and consequently, CMSA No.50 of 2003 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.