JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award made in L. A. C. No. 1659 of 1980 on the file of the Addl. Civil judge, Bailhongal at Saundatti. Land bearing Sy. No. 9/c/218 measuring one acre 26 guntas in village Saundatti was acquired by the Government for construction of bypass road pursuant to a preliminary notification dt. Feb. 5, 1976. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00 per gunta on the basis of the sale transactions gathered by him. The claimant who is the Municipality of Saundatti, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, moved the land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Court. Accordingly a reference was made under S. 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge, Saundatti. ( 2 ) IN the proceedings before the court,. two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant, while producing a copy of the judgment in l. A. C. No. 735 of 1979 as Exts. P. 3 and its decree as Ext. P. 4. The said award related to a land situated at garlahosur village. The parties also produced some other evidence with which we are not particularly concerned. ( 3 ) UPON an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge held that the land has non-agricultural potentiality similar to the one dealt with in the judgment and decree produced under Exts. P. 3 and P. 4. The market value determined with regard to that land was Rs. 1,000/- per gunta. Saundatti, where the present land is situated, is a bigger town than Gorlahosur. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that both the lands were similarly situated. However, he allowed deduction of 1|3 of the land value towards development charges. He thus determined the market value at Rs. 635 per guntas. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the Award, the Land Acqusition Officer has appealed to this Court under S. 54 (1) of the land Acquisition Act. ( 5 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in relying upon Exts. P. 3 and P. 4 for determining the market value of the land in question. ( 5 ) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below was justified in relying upon Exts. P. 3 and P. 4 for determining the market value of the land in question. We do not think that there is any error in relying upon the said judgment The said decision in turn depended upon a case where this Court awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,000 per gunta ior a similar land. Upon the evidence it could be said that the land in question possessed all the potentialities similar to the land localed at Gorlahosur. ( 6 ) THE second question which needs to be considered is whether the learned Judge was justified in allowing only 1/3rd for development charges. Counsel for the appellant urged that ordinarily fifty per cent of the value has to be allowed for the purpose of road formation and development charges. He relied upon the judgment of this court in The Assist. Commissioner and l. A. O. , Davengere vs. Bharat oil Mills ltd. (I ). ( 7 ) IT is reasonably beyond a pale of controversy that where there is a large block of land the market value of which has to be determined on the basis of the price of small sites, then, in the absence of the actual building area tha may be available for sale after laying out roads and drains, the Court may allow fifty per cent towards roads and development charges. This is the ratio of the above decision. ( 8 ) IN Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar improvement Trust (2) the Supreme Court observed :"it is well settled principle of valuation that where there is a large area of undeveloped land under acquisition, provision has to be made lor providing the minimum amenties of town life such as water connections, well laid-out roads, drainag facility, electric connections etc. The process necessarily involves deduction of the cost of factors required to bring the undeveloped lands on a par with the developed lands. An extent of 20 per cent qf the total land acquired is normally taken as a reasonable deduction for the space required for roads. This is apart from the cost of laying roads them selves and the cost of providing other amenities like electricity, water, under ground drainage etc. An extent of 20 per cent qf the total land acquired is normally taken as a reasonable deduction for the space required for roads. This is apart from the cost of laying roads them selves and the cost of providing other amenities like electricity, water, under ground drainage etc. In Tribeni devi v. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 2 s. C. R. 208: (A. I. R. 1982 S. C 1417), the Court allowed a deduction of 33-1 3 per cent towards the cost of development. The cost of development, may range from 20 to 33 per cent depending on the nature of the land, its situation and the stage of do velopment etc. ," ( 9 ) IT is seen from the above judment that ordinarily for roads and towards the cost of development charges like electricity, water, underground drainage etc. , deduction may be made anywhere between 40 to 53 per cent depending on the nature of the land and its situation etc. , ( 10 ) BUT, these principles cannot. e applied in regard to a parcel of land situated in a fairly developed area. In tribeni Devi v. The Collector, Ranchi (3) the Supreme Court observed. "a similar area such as this on a main road would certainly fetch a higher prices compared to a larger undeveloped area even though it may have a frontage on the main road in order to develop that area at least the value of 1/3 of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenties. " ( 11 ) THIS view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra (4 ). From these decisions it is clear that if (he land acquired is located in a fair developed area, then atleast 1/3 of the value of the land has be deducted for roads drainage and other amenties. ( 12 ) IN the light of these principle it seems to us that the discretion exercised by the learned Civil Judge in allowing a deduction of 1'3rd is not at all arbitrary. The extent of land involved is hardly one acre 26 guntas. It is situated within the municipal area and adjacent to a public road. Such an extent of land does not require more than 1/3rd of the value of the land for development charges. The extent of land involved is hardly one acre 26 guntas. It is situated within the municipal area and adjacent to a public road. Such an extent of land does not require more than 1/3rd of the value of the land for development charges. ( 13 ) WE, therefore, see no reason to admit this appeal and it is according rejected. --- *** --- .