JUDGMENT : Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for ADW schemes Act 31/78 r/w section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree made in C.M.A No.1 of 2004 dated 22.12.2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalaipettai modifying the award made in Award No.15/2000-2001 dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi). 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2004 passed in C.M.A No.1 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalaipettai modifying the award made in Award No.15/2000-2001 dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi. 2. At the time when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondent, the respondent being called, remaining absent, set exparte. 3. From the materials placed on record, for the provision of house sites to the Adi-dravidars of Pukkalam Village of Udumalpet Taluk , the land measuring an extent of 0.84.0 hectares in S.F.No.180/4 of Pukkalam village was selected for the provision of house sites of Adi-dravidars and following the same, necessary proposals for the acquisition were initiated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for the Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 31/78 and the notification was served on the land owners on 02.11.2000 and following the same, enquiry was conducted and the land owners participated in the enquiry and thereafter the notification under section 4(1) of the Act had come to be published on 20.12.2000 and thereafter collecting the views of the land owners with reference to the quantum of compensation awarded to them, considering the lie of the land and other advantages of the land proposed to be acquired, the award in question has come to be passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi, on 15.03.2001. 4. Challenging the quantum of award passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare,Pollachi, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the respondent/claimant before the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, contending that the award amount fixed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi is very low and considering the lie of the land and other advantages concerning the land acquired, according to the respondent/claimant, enhanced compensation should have been awarded and accordingly prayed for the enhanced compensation. 5. 5. The appellate authority taking into consideration the various materials placed on record ie., Exs.A1 to A5 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as Exs.B1 to B3 and the evidence of R.W.1, finally fixed the compensation at Rs.5,000/- cent ie., Rs,5,00,000/- per acre and accordingly determined the compensation at Rs.10,35,000/-, the solatium amount at 15%, fixing the same at Rs.1,55,250/- , in all, determined that the respondent/claimant is entitled to receive Rs.11,90,250/- and deducting the amount already paid to the respondent/claimant, directed the appellant to pay the remaining sum with interest as determined by it and aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Considering the materials placed on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent/claimant and other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant, it is noted that the lands sought to be acquired are lying adjacent to the road and having water facilities and also the essential aspect of the land being fit for putting up house sites, particularly noting that the land is sought to be acquired only for putting up the house sites of Adi Dravidars and therefore based on the documents projected by the respondent/claimant namely Exs.A3 and A4 which are the sale deeds of the lands lying adjacent to the property acquired and the abovesaid sale deeds are also effected just prior to the date of notification and considering the similar nature of the soil quality of both the lands and the advantages of the lands acquired, accordingly proceeded to determine the enhanced compensation in favour of the respondent/claimant. In this connection, as rightly concluded by the appellate court, noting the lie of the lands sought to be acquired, considering the various facilities appended to the same, particularly the transport facilities, the lie of the weaving mills and the easy conversion of the acquired lands as house sites and also noting that the sale transactions which had taken place just prior to the notification pertaining to the adjacent lands which had been alienated at Rs.5,000/- per cent and the same has been substantiated by the sale deeds marked as Exs.A3 and A4 and considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with reference to the same and also after considering the various authorities projected by the respective parties, determined that, particularly relying upon Exs.A2 and A3 which have come into existence just prior to section 4(1) notification and noting that the value of the adjacent lands had been sold at Rs.5,000/- per cent and also relying upon Ex.A5, noting that even during the year 1996, the adjacent land had been alienated at Rs.2978/- per cent, in all, rightly concluded that the Special Tahsildar had fixed the value of the acquired land erroneously at Rs.37,931/- per acre which is very low and therefore decided to determine the compensation to which the respondent / claimant is entitled to at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per cent and accordingly finally determined the compensation at Rs.11,90,250/- in favour of the respondent/claimant with interest to be paid by the appellant as determined by it ie., 9% from 20.12.2000 to 15.03.2001 and thereafter at 6% till deposit with costs and directed the appellant to pay the amount within six months, failing which, he is liable to pay the interest at 12%. 7. Considering the reasonings and conclusions of the appellate court, when it is found that the appellate court on a proper appreciation of the sale transactions effected just prior to the notification and also considering the similar nature of soil and classification of the lands sought to be acquired and the lands covered under Exs.A3 to A5 and also the advantages of the proposed acquired land, particularly considering the lie of the lands, rightly proceeded to determine the compensation as determined by it. The abovesaid reasonings and conclusions of the appellate court, being based on the factual matrix and not involving any question of law as such and when the appellant has not projected any infraction of law on the part of the appellate court in determining the abovesaid compensation, it is seen that the second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law for consideration. 8. The Government Pleader however contend that the interest amount awarded by the appellate court is on the higher side. However on a reading of the grounds raised by the appellant in the second appeal as well as the substantial questions of law mooted by him, it is found that no challenge has been made with reference to the quantum of interest fixed by the appellate court for the enhanced compensation fixed by it and the substantial question of law proposed is also not centering on the quantum of interest fixed by the appellate court, in such view of the matter, the arguments putforth by the Government Pleader that the interest awarded by the trial court is against law, as such, cannot be countenanced. 9. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.