JUDGMENT Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—These appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 4.11.1999 delivered by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamakhandi, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 69 of 1977, 68 of 1977, 70 of 1997, 75 of 1997, 78 of 1997, 77 of 1997, 74 of 1997, 76 of 1997, 67 of 1997, 72 of 1997, 73 of 1997 and 71 of 1997. The lands, subject matter of dispute, under acquisition are as mentioned hereunder: Sl.A. LAC Nos.Gts. RS Nos. Area acquired Location No. 1. 75/1997 610/4 3-17 Bilagi 2. 67/1997 615/2B 4.05 Bilagi 3. 68/1997 614/5 7-08 Bilagi 4. 69/1997 614/3 7-18 Bilagi 5. 70/1997 614/1 7-18 Bilagi 6. 71/1997 612/4 04-02 Bilagi 7. 72/1997 612/2 04-02 Bilagi 8. 73/997 612/2 04.02 Bilagi 9. 74/1997 612/1 06.00 Bilagi 10. 76/1997 610/3A 05-04 Bilagi 11. 77/1997 610/2 02-00 Bilagi 12. 78/1997 610/2 04-22 Bilagi 614/4 02-37 Bilagi A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued as preliminary notification dated 7.3.1996 for acquisition of these lands for the purpose of Rehabilitation Centre for the Project Displaced families of Dhavaleshwar village. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, after getting the spot inspection of the lands done on 17.8.1996 classifying the lands as "dry lands" and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 19,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. The claimants feeling dissatisfied by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed Reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation of the lands acquired and thereafter the cases were referred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamkhandi. That the claimants claimed enhanced compensation in respect of the lands in question, the learned Civil Judge, taking into consideration the material placed on record and the law applicable, held that the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, for determination of compensation or market value, was not the recognised method to evaluate the market value of the lands in question. The Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the sales statistics of the lands of previous 3 years. The Civil Court finally adopted the method inconsonance with the well settled principles of law. The Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the sales statistics of the lands of previous 3 years. The Civil Court finally adopted the method inconsonance with the well settled principles of law. According to the well settled principles of law, there are three recognised methods for determining the compensation viz., 1) Expert opinion 2) Comparison of the sale value fetched by the sale transactions at the relevant point of time and 3) capitalisation method of income. The Civil Court followed the method of the sales transactions at the relevant time reduced by and 30% on the face value or the market value has been considered to arrive the method of capitalisation. The Civil Court followed the method of the sales transaction executed at the relevant period. It took into consideration the evidence furnished by way of sale deeds viz., Ex. P27 dated 22.3.1995 which per se exhibited that PW-3 had bought the land for Rs. 8,000/- measuring 20' x 40'. He also referred to Ex. P25 whereunder an area of 30' x 40' of plot No. 1030 F.37 had been sold to one Chandrashekar for Rs. 11,000/- on 5.4.1995. It also took in to consideration Ex.P23, the sale deed dated 12.6.1995, whereby an area of 30' x 40' of plot bearing No. 920/B-6 was transferred for Rs. 13,000/- to one Lankappa Siddappa Bhusraddi. In addition thereto, the learned Civil Judge also took into consideration the oral evidence of the witnesses examined as well as other documents. The Civil Judge, from the perusal of the sale deeds, came to the conclusion that the sale deeds clearly showed that one square feet of land fetched at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. then the Court applied the principle that so far as the similar transactions relating to smaller plots being available, so the market value of the land can be reduced by Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. and it arrived at market value to be Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. After arriving at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. it multiplied the area of one acre of the land by Rs. 7/- and arrived at Rs. 3,04,920/- to be price of one acre land. 3/- per sq. ft. and it arrived at market value to be Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. After arriving at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. it multiplied the area of one acre of the land by Rs. 7/- and arrived at Rs. 3,04,920/- to be price of one acre land. The Civil Court has considered and after taking into consideration of the report furnished by the Inspector in Para 16 of Judgment found that Bilagi Town is found developing towards northern side and up Hillock Town land acquired is in a developed condition and the development activities have taken place and so there is no need for further development and Dhareshwar Rehabilitation Centre is situated towards northern side for development and the land acquired has got Non-Agricultural-Potentiality. 2. The Civil Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma ILR 1998 Kar 926 held that "in the present situation looking into the area as already being developed and the development activities have taken place, it will be appropriate that deduction at 40% of the market value towards development activities would be sufficient and justified so it made deduction at 40% from the value of the land fetched and arrived at Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. The Civil Court arrived at the conclusion that if a sum of Rs. 1,21,968/- is deducted from the figure of Rs. 3,04,920/-, the approximate value of the land will come to Rs. 1,82,952/-. The Civil Court rounded upto Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre at the market value of the land considering its non-agricultural potentiality and it awarded the compensation on the enhanced value of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre. It further awarded solatium of 30% and 12%, as additional market value, on the enhanced compensation. It further awarded interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year from the date of taking of possession and for the rest of the period, it further provided that the claimants are entitled to 15% interest, per annum, on the enhanced compensation for the subsequent years, after expiry of one year from the date of taking of possession of the acquired lands till payment or deposit. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Civil Judge in all these cases, the Government has come up in appeal. 4. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Civil Judge in all these cases, the Government has come up in appeal. 4. We have heard Sri K.P. Ashok Kumar, learned High Court Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri S.A. Kalagi, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 5. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Government Advocate contended that the deduction of 40% towards development charges and the cost of development has been on the lower side and is illegal and not according to law. The learned Government Advocate vehemently contended that it should have been in every case at least 55% if not 65%. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed much reliance on the decision reported in the case of Smt. Basavva and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 4 AD SC 426 . That decision, in our opinion, is per se distinguishable. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para-3 that: In this case the facts recorded by the High Court are that Ex.P10 sale deed is dependable sale but it is in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than 1 k.m. It is also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. The High Court also noted that it takes years for development in those lands though, the lands are capable to be used for non-agricultural purpose. 6. This per se reveals that in that case the factor that was taken into view is that the land is not developed and that there is no development in that area and that it takes years for development in those lands and therefore the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that deduction for development charge up to 53% is valid. The present case stands on a different footing. In this case, the report that has been filed and the evidence indicates that the area is already developed area and is fast developing. This has been discussed in great detail by the learned Civil Judge in his order at inner pages 18 to 24 i.e., ink written page No. 26 onwards up to 32. In this case, the report that has been filed and the evidence indicates that the area is already developed area and is fast developing. This has been discussed in great detail by the learned Civil Judge in his order at inner pages 18 to 24 i.e., ink written page No. 26 onwards up to 32. The learned Civil Judge has considered that aspect and has observed on going through the documents produced by the claimants in the Court below in paragraph-14 it observed in paragraph-16 as under: It has also come in the evidence on record that about 52 villages of Bilagi Taluk are going to be submerged and the people of those villages are trying to settle at Bilagi town only and also 15 Rehabilitation Centres have come up and the villagers were settled in those rehabilitation centres and Bilagi Town is fast developing towards Northern side only since towards Southern side there is a Hillock and up to Hillock town is developed and there is no scope for developing further and towards East also up to Billagi Cross, R.C. centres have come up and after Bilagi Cross, there is also Hillock, as such, in that direction also there is no scope for development. Towards southern side of Bilagi Town, there is a big ditch and Ghataprabha river is flowing. So, there is no scope for development that side also. Now, therefore, Bilagi Town is developing towards northern side only. This Dhavaleshwar Rehabilitation centre is also situated towards northern side for development as stated above, this Court is of the humble view that there is more pressure or demand for land. Thus having regard to the cumulative factors and circumstances, this Court holds that the acquired lands have got non-agricultural potentiality of being used as Urban Land of being used as building sites. This is another thing. 7. So it reveals very clear that the area has been developed area in the present case. But in Basavva's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. This is another thing. 7. So it reveals very clear that the area has been developed area in the present case. But in Basavva's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. The learned Civil Judge when he determined that the deduction that it should be awarded only at the rate of 40% which he considered on the higher side and just it so viewed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamalamma ILR 1998 Kar 926 vide Paragraph-8 It will be appropriate to mention that in the case of Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, AIR 1982 SC 940 , it has been laid that: An extent of 20% of total land acquired is normally taken as reasonable deduction for space required for roads. This is apart from cost of laying roads themselves and the cost of providing other amenities like electricity, water, underground drainage etc.,.... The cost of development may range from 20 to 33 per cent depending on nature of land, its situation and stage of development. 8. In the context, the nature of land involved in the present case and development having already taken place deduction of 20% towards for land or space required and 20% towards cost of development activity i.e., total deduction to the tune of 40% as indicated in the order of Civil Judge appears to be justified and is not on lower side. 9. In our considered opinion, the Court below was justified in making deduction only to the extent of 40% towards the development charge i.e. cost of land required for development work and cost of development activity and is in line to latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. That in Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1080 to 1088 of 2000, decided by us today relating to similar lands acquired in Bilagi Town, we have, after due consideration, affirmed the Civil Judge's Order awarding compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre and have held that deduction of 40% of value of land towards cost of land required for development and of development activities as valid. We follow our earlier decision rendered in Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1,80,000/- per acre and have held that deduction of 40% of value of land towards cost of land required for development and of development activities as valid. We follow our earlier decision rendered in Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1080 to 1088 of 2000. 11. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is confirmed.