JUDGMENT P.A. Mohammed, J. 1. This batch of Land Acquisition Appeals filed by the State of Kerala can be disposed of by a common judgment in as much as the question which came up for consideration in all cases is one and same. 2. These appeals are filed against the common judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta in LAR Nos. 179/88, 180/88, 181/88 and 288/88. The lands involved in these references were acquired for the purpose of establishing Kerala Armed Force Camp at Erathu, Adoor. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded that land value in all the cases at the rate of Rs. 1792/- per Are for portions of dry land and Rs. 889/- per Are for portions of wet land. The land value was enhanced by the court below at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Are in respect of dry land and Rs. 2,000/- per Are in respect of wet land. 3. The number of reference cases, the extent of acquired land and its classification are tabulated as below: Sl.No. No. of Reference Case Extent of land Classification of land 1. LAR No. 288/88 (23.28 acres) 9.4287 Hectre Dry land 2. "     " (4.75 Acres) 1.9223 Hectre Wet land 3. LAR No. 181/88 43.70 Ares (1.08 Acre) Wet land 4. LAR No. 180/88 27.92 Ares (69 cents) Wet land 5. LAR No. 179/88 52. 61 Ares (1.30 cents) Wet land 4. The court below enhanced the land value in respect of dry land as well as wet land taking into consideration of Exts. A1 and A2 documents. However, the land value fixed in Exts. A1 and A2 was not totally adopted by it. Ext. A1 is a copy of the Sale Deed No. 1925/83 dated 30-5-1983 executed by two persons in favour of one John Cherian. Ext. A2 is the copy of the Sale Deed No. 3082/83 dated 8.9.1983. As per Ext. A1 deed 20 cents of land was sold for the consideration at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per cent. Likewise 27 cents of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1500 per cent. Ext. A1 document relates to the dry land whereas Ext. A2 relates to the wet land. 5. The Government Pleader contended that the enhanced value fixed by the court below at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Are for dry land and Rs. Likewise 27 cents of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1500 per cent. Ext. A1 document relates to the dry land whereas Ext. A2 relates to the wet land. 5. The Government Pleader contended that the enhanced value fixed by the court below at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per Are for dry land and Rs. 2,000/- per Are for wet land is excessive and the same cannot be adopted as a basis for awarding the land value. The property covered by Ext. A1 situates to the immediate north of the land under present acquisition. AW 3 has testified the genuineness of the transaction under Ext. A1. AW 2 has deposed that the land covered by Ext. A1 is more prominent than the dry land portions of the acquired land. So also by Ext. A2 Sale Deed 27 cents of paddy land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per cent. The paddy land covered by Ext. A2 is lying adjacent to M. C. Road. Besides there is evidence to the effect that the acquired lands situate 1 1/2 kilometre away from Parakkodu market and about 4 kilometre from Adoor Municipal town and that there are other public and private institutions like College, Commercial Bank, places of workship etc. within the radius of two kilometres. The proximity of public and private institutions like Market, Municipal town, Colleges, Commercial Banks, Places of workship etc. to the land sought to be acquired would no doubt increase the potential value. Such factors are not beyond the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Hindusthan O. C. Ltd. v. Damodaran Namboodiri ( 1986 KLT 1013 ) for determination of compensation under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we refrain from disturbing the finding of the court below in so far as the rate of land value in respect of both dry land and wet land. We confirm the said findings of the court below. 6. Secondly, it was urged by the Government Pleader that the deduction should have been granted by the court below to account for the factor pertaining to the largeness of the block of land to the extent of 28.03 Acres of dry as well as wet land involved in LAR No. 288/88. 6. Secondly, it was urged by the Government Pleader that the deduction should have been granted by the court below to account for the factor pertaining to the largeness of the block of land to the extent of 28.03 Acres of dry as well as wet land involved in LAR No. 288/88. It is pointed out that the above land situate in farflung and it takes long time for development. In other words, argument is that certain percentage of deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fail market value of large tracts of dry and wet lands. The principle involved here is that the court at the first instance has to consider the sales relating to smaller pieces of lands are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. If it is found in affirmative sufficient deduction should be made for fixing the compensation under S.23 of the Act. The principle governing the above deduction has been stated by the Supreme Court in K. Vasundara Devi. v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) ( 1995 (5) SCC 426 ) thus: "When genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents were considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracts of land." 7. While advancing the above point the Government pleader has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. 1) Chimanlal v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona ( AIR 1988 SC 1652 ). 2) Administrator Genl. of W. B. v. Collector, Varanasi ( AIR 1988 SC 943 ) 3) Spl. Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala Gowri ( 1991 (4) SCC 218 ). In all these cases certain percentages of deduction had been fixed by the courts for largeness of the block of lands under acquisition. The time lag for real development and waiting period for development are also relevant consideration for determination of compensation for large tracks of land. The nature of the development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. are also relevant factors to be considered while fixing the percentage of deduction. The nature of the development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. are also relevant factors to be considered while fixing the percentage of deduction. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how such deduction should be made in a given situation. It is totally dependent on the facts of each case. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Basavva and Others v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Others (1996 LACC 418). As far as the present case is concerned no material is available and the court below has not adverted to these aspects. The percentage of deduction for developmental charges will have to be determined by the court below by adducing necessary evidence and after considering all the relevant circumstance of the case. While doing so, the contention advanced by the claimant that while initially fixing the land value, sufficient deduction had been granted for developmental charges will have to be enquired into by the court below. 8. The third point urged by the Government Pleader relates to the interest payable on solatium. His case is that the claimants are not entitled to interest under S.28 on the amount of solatium granted under S.23(2) of the Act. In support of the said plea, he places reliance on the decisions of this court in State of Kerala v. Kerala Agricultural University ( 1996 (1) KLT 560 ) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Yadavrao P. Pathade v. State of Maharashtra (1996 (1) KLT 452 (SC. In the latter case, the Supreme Court held: "In other words, S.28 does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under S.28 referable to S.23(1) of the Act. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Similar view was taken by this court after Periyar's case (supra) by a three-Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur & Another etc. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (C.A. 11398/95 etc.) decided on Nov. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Similar view was taken by this court after Periyar's case (supra) by a three-Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur & Another etc. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (C.A. 11398/95 etc.) decided on Nov. 29, 1995." In State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Sawan Hatkar ( 1995 (3) SCC 316 ) the Supreme Court held thus: "It would be seen that the additional amounts envisaged under sub-s.(1A) and (2) of S.23 are not part of the component of the compensation awarded under sub-s.(1) of S.23 of the Act. They are only in addition to the market value of the land. The payment of interest also is only consequential to the enhancement of the compensation. In a case where the court has not enhanced the compensation on reference, the court is devoid of power to award any interest for one year from the date of taking possession at 9 per cent and 15 per cent thereafter till date of payment into the court as envisaged under the proviso." Therefore, the payment of interest on solatium is disallowed applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above. 9. In the result, the above Land Acquisition Appeals are remanded to the court below for deciding the references afresh in view of the findings/observations made above. While re-fixing the compensation as above both parties are free to adduce evidence. The Land Acquisition Appeals are disposed of as above.