Judgment : P. Thangavel, J.: 1. These are all appeals filed by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Air Force Station, Unit No.I, Thanjavur, against the common order and decretal orders dated 10.11.1998 and made in L.A.O.P. Nos.305 and 306 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu through Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Air Force Station, Unit No.I, Thanjavur, hereinafter referred to as “the Referring Officer”, acquired the lands in Survey Nos.155/1 measuring O.23.48 Hectare belonging to Faizunnisa, the claimant in appeal in A.S.No.519 of 1998 and the lands in Survey Nos.155/1, 156 and 157/1 measuring about 6.36.02 Hectares belonging to Mohammad Iqbal, the claimant in appeal in A.S.No.520 of 1999 on the file of this Court for the purpose of construction of staff quarters for the Air Force Staff at Thanjavur, Nanjikottai, Vallundampattu Vattam by issuing notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 herein after referred to as ‘the Act’, on 10.12.1991. The Referring Officer passed an award in Award No.9/94, dated 25.10.1994 fixing the market value of the land acquired for the abovesaid purpose at Rs.150 per cent. Not satisfied with the market value arrived at by the Referring Officer, the claimants wanted the matter to be referred to the Sub Court at Thanjavur, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’. The Reference Court has taken the matters under reference relating to Faizunnisa and Mohammed Iqbal in L.A.O.P.Nos.305 and 306 of 1995 on the file of the Reference Court respectively. The claimants referred to above claimed a sum of Rs.25 per square foot as compensation for the lands acquired from them. 3. Thiruvalargal A. Mohammed Iqbal (claimant in A.S.No.306 of 1995), G.Natarajan, J.Deivanayagam, Gnanaprakasam Udayar, S.Joseph and S.Gunaseelan were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 respectively while one N.Sarala, Advocate Commissioner was examined as P.W.7 before the Reference Court. Exs.A-1 to A-26 were marked in support of the claim made by the claimants. One S.Balakrishnan, was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the Referring Officer before the Reference Court. Exs.C-1 to C-4, Commissioners Reports and Plans were also marked before the Reference Court to decide the issue in dispute. Exs.A-1 to A-26 were marked in support of the claim made by the claimants. One S.Balakrishnan, was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the Referring Officer before the Reference Court. Exs.C-1 to C-4, Commissioners Reports and Plans were also marked before the Reference Court to decide the issue in dispute. After considering the material evidence available on record, the Reference Court relying on Ex.A-9 has fixed the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants at Rs.3 per square foot, apart from granting statutory benefits like solatium, additional amount and interest. Aggrieved at the common order and decretal orders dated 30.11.1998 and made in L.A.O.P.Nos.305 and 306 of 1995, the Referring Officer as appellant has come forward with these appeals. 4. The fact remains that the claimants in both the appeals were the owners of the lands mentioned above and the said lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu through the Referring Officer by issuing notification dated 10.12.1991 under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The fact also remains that the Referring Officer in Award No.9/94 on 25.10.1994 fixed the market value of the above acquired lands at Rs.150 per cent. Ex.A-2 dated 13.5.1987 and Ex.A-3 dated 31.7.1987 are sale deeds with regard to 975 square feet and 2,400 square feet in Survey No.168 in Vallundampattu Vattam and the properties were sold at Rs.5 and Rs.3.50 per square foot respectively. Exs. A-4 to A-7 dated 10.2.1988 are also sale deeds relating to sale of small pieces of lands in Survey No.168 at Rs.3.50 per square foot. Ex.A-8, dated 13.3.1989 is also a sale deed relating to sale of small piece of land in Survey No.168 at Rs.4 per square foot. Ex.A-9, dated 1.3.1991 is also a sale deed with regard to sale of a small piece of land in Survey No.166/3 at Rs.4.50 per square foot. Ex.A-10, dated 8.12.1989 and Ex.A-11, dated 18.12.1989 are also sale deeds with regard to sale of small pieces of lands in Survey No.181/2A in Vallundampattu Vattam at the rate of Rs.6 or Rs.6.50 per square foot. Ex.A-12, dated 5.7.1990 and Ex.A-13, dated 10.5.1991 are also sale deeds relating to sale of small pieces of lands in Survey No.181/2A at the rate of Rs.6.50 and Rs.7.20 per square foot respectively. Ex.A-12, dated 5.7.1990 and Ex.A-13, dated 10.5.1991 are also sale deeds relating to sale of small pieces of lands in Survey No.181/2A at the rate of Rs.6.50 and Rs.7.20 per square foot respectively. Ex.A-14, dated 25.10.1989 is also a similar sale deed executed with regard to a small piece of lands in the abovesaid Survey Number. Ex.A-16, dated 28.2.1991 is another sale deed executed with regard to a piece of land in Survey No.182 at Rs.87,000 per Acre. Ex.A-21, dated 18.2.1991 is another document that had come into existence few months earlier to issue of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Ex.A-22, dated 27.9.1988 is a sale deed with regard to sale of a small piece of land in Survey No.207/2 at the rate of Rs.15 per square foot. Ex.B-1, dated 28.2.1991 is another similar copy of sale deed relied on by the Referring Officer. The other documents are not necessary for deciding the market value of the acquired lands. 5. The lands acquired from the claimants are situate adjacent East of Thanjavur- Pudukkottai Main Road while the lands sold under Ex.A-9, dated 1.3.1991 is just adjacent West of the abovesaid Thanjavur- Pudukkottai Road and also opposite to the acquired lands. The lands covered under other sale deeds referred to above are situate far away from the acquired lands and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly refused to consider the other sale deeds except Ex.A-9 which situates adjacent West of the acquired lands. 6. Of course P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined in support of the claimants and also spoke with regard to certain sale deeds referred to above. Even if the parties to the abovesaid sale deeds are not examined, such documents may be relied, if this Court is so satisfied, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of three Hon’ble Judges in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah J.T. (2001)3 S.C. 157, wherein it was held as follows: “It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the State Officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in Court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Sec.51-A was introduced in the Land Acquisition Act. When the Section says that the certified copy of a registered document” may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document “it enables the Court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence. The words “may be accepted as evidence” in the Section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence……..We are unable to concur with the observations made by the two Judges Bench in the decisions in Inder Singh v. Union of India J.T. (1993)3 S.C. 653: (1993)3 S.C.C. 340 and P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad J.T. (1995)1 S.C. 593: (1995)2 S.C.C. 305 that even in spite of Sec.51-A of the Act certified copies of the sale deed could not be considered without examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein.” In view of the decision referred to above and in the light of the fact that there is no dispute as to the relying upon the abovesaid documents, we are inclined to consider Ex.A-9 for fixing the market value of the lands acquired from the claimants. 7. It is evident from a perusal of the records that Tamil University, Paddy Processing Research Centre, Thanjavur Textiles, Tantex, Kamala Subramaniam Matriculation School and the present Air Force Station, apart from other residential areas are very nearer to the acquired lands which situate in the main road referred to above. The said facts would lead to conclude that there is potentiality for the acquired lands from the claimants, by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The said facts would lead to conclude that there is potentiality for the acquired lands from the claimants, by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The market value has to be arrived at not only taking into consideration of the potentiality of the land but also the purpose for which the said lands were acquired. As already pointed out, the piece of land sold under Ex.A-9, dated 1.3.1991 had fetched Rs.4.50 per square foot. 8. Of course, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others v. State of Maharashtra (1996)2 S.C.C. 152 , as follows: “The Reference Court committed manifest error in determining the compensation on the basis of square foot. When lands to an extent of about 20 acres are offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on square foot basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider the valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on square foot basis. No feast of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously no.” In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, it is clear that the Reference Court has committed an error in arriving at the market value of the land at Rs.3 per square foot deducting 33 1/3% from the value of Rs.4.50 per square foot relying on Ex.A-9, while vast extent of land was acquired for the purposes mentioned above. 9. The Honourable Apex Court has also held in Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (1996)9 S.C.C. 640 , that where the sale deed relied on by the claimant is with regard to small plot of land at a distance of more than one kilo metre, and where the land under acquisition is situate in an undeveloped area and likely to take long time for development, deduction between 33 1/3% to 53% from the market value for the development charges is valid. In that case, an additional deduction at 12% has also been made by the High Court and the same was also held to be not illegal in the circumstances of that case. 10. If the decisions referred to above are considered together, in the light of the material oral and documentary evidence available on record, deduction of 40% towards development charges from the value covered under Ex.A-9 will meet the ends of justice. If it is calculated in acreage in the light of the value given in Ex.A-9 after giving deduction of 40% towards development charges, it will work out to Rs.1,17,612 rounded off to Rs.1,17,600 per acre. Taking into consideration of the location and potentiality of the acquired lands, we hold that fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.1,17,600 per acre will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, the market value of the acquired lands fixed by the Reference Court is reduced and modified to Rs.1,17,600 per acre. 11. With regard to statutory amounts payable to the claimants, we make it clear that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium only for the market value of the lands acquired. Further, they are entitled to an additional amount at 12% per annum from the date of Sec.4(1) notification till the date of passing of Award or delivery of possession, whichever is earlier. In addition to this, the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and therefore, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit. The claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and Additional amount. We further make it clear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is pending before the larger Bench of the Supreme Court and depending on the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, the claimants are permitted to file appropriate petition before the competent Sub Court. 12. In fine, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.