JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are against the Judgment of the High Court dated 30th July, 1998. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- On 8th April. 1976, Section 4 Notification was issued. An Award was passed wherein the compensation was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The claimants filed References. The Reference Court considered, a sale example which was marked as Ex. P. 2 to be relevant. Under the sale example, the price was Rs. 2080/- per guntha i.e. Rs. 83,200/- per acre. However, relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court wherein it is held as follows: "Having regard to the distance between Naryananpura and the acquired/,lands and the possibility that a developer may have to wait for some time to realise the fruits of development, we deem it fit to deduct further 12% from the net figure arrived at (after deducting the normal 53% from the retail price), to reach the market value of these lands. This deduction is permissible having regard to the depth of the lands under consideration, from the land sold under Ex. P.10 and the waiting period for the development to take place....." The Reference Court thus made a deduction of 65%. The Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 3. The Appellants filed no appeal to the High Court. The claimants, however, went to the High Court for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the deduction of 65% was very high. Whilst the matter was pending in the High Court, the question whether deductions should be at 53% or 38% was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench by its decision in The Assistant Commissioner v. Kemalabai Kom Laxinan Metri (reported in ILR 1997 KAR 2063) considered, amongst others the decisions of this Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi. [(1988) 2 SCC 5 150] wherein in para 12 it is held that this Court had in Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust [ (1982) 1 SCC 419 ] laid down that development expenses can come upto 53%. The Full Bench notes that in Sahib Singh's case it is held that normal deduction is 20% but that development costs can range from 20% to 33% depending on the nature of land, its structure and stage of development. The Full Bench notes that in Sahib Singh's case it is held that normal deduction is 20% but that development costs can range from 20% to 33% depending on the nature of land, its structure and stage of development. The Full Bench held, correctly, that in Administrator General of West Bengal's case there was a misreading of Sahib Singh's case. The Full Bench held that deduction should be @ 33%. That the deduction should normally be ?rd is reiterated by this Court in the decision in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [ (2003) 1 SCC 354 ]. 4. The High Court relied upon the Judgment of the Full Bench and held that the deduction could not be 65% but could only 5 be 33%. The High Court thus awarded Rs.55, 744/- per acre. 5. It is urged that there cannot be any strait jacket formula on what deductions is to be applied. It is urged that deduction may vary from case to case. There can be no dispute to this proposition. However as a general rule deduction would be 33 ?%. If the State or the acquiring body claim higher deduction they must show why higher deduction should be granted. 6. It is next urged that the sale instance, which was relied upon, was admittedly in respect of a fully developed plot within the municipal limits. It was urged that the acquired lands were agricultural lands outside the municipal limits. It was submitted that, therefore, the deduction of 65% was correct. It was urged that the High Court was thus in error in deducting only 33% without giving any reasons whatsoever. 7. It must immediately be noticed that both the Reference Court and the High Court have proceeded on the basis that development costs have to be deducted. The Reference Court proceeds on the footing that the normal deduction for development cost would be 53% and to that 12% were to be added for the waiting period to realise the fruit of development. It is on this basis that the deduction of 65% is made. What the Reference Court and the High Court overlook is that in this case there was absolutely no question of making any deduction for development cost. These were agricultural lands which were acquired for agricultural purposes. It is on this basis that the deduction of 65% is made. What the Reference Court and the High Court overlook is that in this case there was absolutely no question of making any deduction for development cost. These were agricultural lands which were acquired for agricultural purposes. The Reference Court, in para 12 of its order, notes the contentions of the appellants (herein) that these were agricultural lands and that they were acquired for agricultural purposes. The High Court also notes in its Judgment that these lands are now being used for a nursery. Normally development costs are deducted towards costs of providing for roads, other amenities like water, electricity, buildings etc. Interest costs, for the time lag in development, is also taken into consideration in cases where lands were acquired for development purposes and it takes time to develop the land. The cases relied upon by the appellants namely Basavva & Ors. v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 640 , Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 422 and L.A.O. v. Nookala Rajamallu reported in 2003(10) SCALE 307 are all cases where lands were acquired for the purposes of development either for an orphanage or for housing colonies or for industrial centres etc. In such cases development charges would have to be deducted. But in a case like the present, there can be no deduction for development cost as there are no development costs to be incurred. Thus there could have been no deduction on this count. 8. However, the fact still remains that the sale instance was in respect of a small piece of land which was fully developed land and in a municipal limits whereas these are agricultural lands outside municipal limits. Therefore, even though development cost may not be deducted there has to be deduction for largeness of the land and also for the fact that these are agricultural lands. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court deducting 33% even though it may have been deducted under a wrong head. 9. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.