G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer challenging the order passed by the Reference court, learned Senior Civil Judge, narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District in o. P. No. 2 of 1999. ( 2 ) AN extent of 10 acres situate in sy. No. 20 of Kodangal village was acquired for establishing market yard. Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 15-5-1990. The land Acquisition Officer, Narayanpet, passed award on 11-9-1999. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 29,700/- per acre. On a reference having been made at the instance of the claimants, the Reference Court arrived at the market value at Rs. 72/- per sq. yard and after deducting 40% fixed the market value at Rs. 43/- per sq. yard by an order dated 16-2-2000 passed in O. P. No. 2 of 1999. The said order is challenged by the land Acquisition Officer in this Appeal. The market yard for whose benefit the land was acquired is also impleaded as a party in this Appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submits that the award of Rs. 43/- per sq. yard in respect of acquired land is highly excessive and exorbitant. He submits that the Land acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation appropriately basing on Ex. B 1, but the learned Reference Court without taking into consideration Ex. B 1 has erroneously relied on Ex. A3 and fixed the value of Rs. 72/- per sq. yard and thereafter deducted 40% towards developmental charges. The said procedure adopted by the reference Court is illegal and contrary to law. The learned Counsel would also submit that the lands covered by Ex. A-3 are small bits and the deduction of 40% itself is on a very low side. The deduction ought to have been made on a higher side. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the market value as fixed by the Reference Court is illegal and contrary to law and the same was fixed at a very low rate. Exs. A-3 and A-4, if taken into consideration, the value should be much higher than what was fixed by the reference Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the land acquired is in a developed area, which is borne out by Ex. Exs. A-3 and A-4, if taken into consideration, the value should be much higher than what was fixed by the reference Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the land acquired is in a developed area, which is borne out by Ex. A3 and also the evidence adduced by the claimants in this appeal. Therefore, he submits that appropriate enhancement is necessary in this case. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 . ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the Market yard while supporting the Government pleader submits that discarding Ex. B1 by the Reference Court is illegal and contrary to law and when the land covered by Ex. B-1 is at an equi distance from the land covered by Ex. A-3 and taking the clue from Ex. B-1 cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. Thus, she submits that the Award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel, however, submits that the claimants are not entitled for compensation on the ground that the land in question belongs to Government, and, therefore, the claim itself is not tenable and the same is liable to be rejected. We are unable to appreciate this contention, inasmuch as, it is for the person claiming right over the land to take appropriate proceedings and the market yard cannot be allowed to contend that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation. ( 6 ) COMING to the question of fixation of market value, the issue that arises for consideration is whether fixation of market value at Rs. 43/- per sq. yard is justified or whether any enhancement is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case? ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that 10 acres of land was acquired which is situated on pwd Road on the outskirts of Kodangal town. The land is required for market yard. Before the Reference Court, the claimants pressed into service Exs. A-2, A-3 and A-4 apart from Exs. A-5, A-6 and A-7. But, however, the Reference Court refused to take into consideration Exs. A-5 to A-7. The only document, which was relied upon by the Reference Court is Ex. A-3, which was properly proved, and its genuineness was not in doubt. Before the Reference Court, the claimants pressed into service Exs. A-2, A-3 and A-4 apart from Exs. A-5, A-6 and A-7. But, however, the Reference Court refused to take into consideration Exs. A-5 to A-7. The only document, which was relied upon by the Reference Court is Ex. A-3, which was properly proved, and its genuineness was not in doubt. It is a sale deed dated 14-10-1988 under which an extent of 100 yards was sold at the rate of Rs. 72/- per sq. yard. Ex. A2 is a registered sale deed dated: 4. 9. 1985 wherein 120 sq. yards was sold at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. yard while in Ex. A-4, l00 sq. yards was sold on 2. 1. 1989 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. The learned reference Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants found that the area was developed inasmuch as it is situated on the main road of mahabubnagar to Tandoor PWD Road. It is also in evidence that it is nearer to the bus-stand and some constructions have already come and the same is just opposite to the acquired land. This aspect was considered by the Reference Court in the following paragraphs:"now it is necessary to discuss about the locations of the acquired land, the land covered by Ex. B-1 which was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and lands covered by Ex. A-2 to A-4. As already stated the acquired land is situated within 150 to 200 yards from Bus-stand Kodangal and cross Roads, Kodangal. The Bus-stand was constructed at Cross Roads, Sy. No. 1186 which was adopted by Land Acquisition officer and the acquired lands are situated at equal distance from Bus-stand and Cross roads, Kodangal, as per Ex. B-2. However the acquired land is abutting Mahabubnagar- tandoor, PWD Road whereas Sy. No. 1186 is interior and away from Hyderabad-Gulbarga, pwd Road. It is not abutting PWD Road. It is common knowledge that lands abutting pwd Road are useful for commercial purpose and whereas the interior lands may not be useful for commercial purpose. Therefore the land covered by Ex. B-1 is not comparable. Moreover, as already observed neither the vendee nor the vendor of Ex. B-1 are examined as witnesses. According to Ex. B-2, Sy. No. 1183 is quite adjacent to acquired land separated by mahabubnagar-Tandoor, PWD Road. Therefore the land covered by Ex. B-1 is not comparable. Moreover, as already observed neither the vendee nor the vendor of Ex. B-1 are examined as witnesses. According to Ex. B-2, Sy. No. 1183 is quite adjacent to acquired land separated by mahabubnagar-Tandoor, PWD Road. The acquired land is on the North East to mahabubnagar, Tandoor PWD Road whereas sy. No. 1183 is on the South West of mahaboobnagar Tandoor Road. Both the lands are opposite to each other. Sy. No. 1184 is to the South of Sy. No. 1183. Sy. No. 1 184 is situated on either side of Hyderabad- gulbarga, PWD Road. As already stated house plots were made in Sy. Nos. 1183 and 1184 and also on yardage basis from 1985 onwards as revealed from Exs. A-2 to A-4. According to PW-2, he sold house site under the original of Ex. A-2 @ Rs. 25/- per sq. yard in 1985 and @ Rs. 72/- per sq. yard in 1988. Both the sites are situated in sy. Nos. 1183 and 1184. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the transactions under the originals of Exs. A-2 and A-3. By Exs. A-2 and A-3, it is abundantly clear that the sites situated in the same locality were sold @ Rs. 25/- per sq. yard in 1985 and @ Rs. 75/-per sq. yard in the year 1988. In three years, the price increased two times. The land covered by Ex. A-4 also situated in sy. No. 1184. Ex. A-4 is the document of january, 1989 i. e. , more than one year prior to the date of notification. Therefore the genuineness of the transaction under the original of Ex. A-4 cannot be doubted. The consideration of Ex. A-4 is Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the claimants are entitled to claim market value according to Ex. A-4 along with escalation margin. Ex. A-4 does not pertain to Sy. No. l 183, it pertains to Sy. No. 1184 which is at some distance from the acquired land. Though ex. A-4 can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Court is reluctant to rely on Ex. A-4. Ex. A-3 pertains to the land situated in sy. No. 1183 and 1184, S. No. 1183 is adjacent to the acquired land and separated by PWD road. Though ex. A-4 can be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Court is reluctant to rely on Ex. A-4. Ex. A-3 pertains to the land situated in sy. No. 1183 and 1184, S. No. 1183 is adjacent to the acquired land and separated by PWD road. Even if it is assumed for a while that the site covered by Ex. A-3 is somewhat nearer to Bus-stand and Cross Roads, kodangal, then the acquired land, the little distance does not make any difference in urban areas. Kodgangal is erstwhile taluk headquarters prior to formation of Mandals. The Bus-stand was constructed more than 20 years back at the outskirts of Old kodangal Town as suggested to PW-1 and admitted by PW-1. It is common knowledge that after Bus-stand is constructed, the area will develop more and people will try to have their commercial complexes around the bus-stand area instead of old town. It has come in the evidence that houses came up over the sites covered by Exs. A-2 to A-4 and around Bus-stand. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, considering the facts and circumstances of the case with reference to Ex. A-3, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Reference Court relying on Ex. A-3. The Reference Court rightly rejected Ex. B-1, which is far away from the acquired land and it cannot be said to be a comparable sale for the purpose of assessing the market value and the same can also be found from the sketch, ex. B-2. ( 9 ) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the deduction of 40% is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions? ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader, however, submits that more than 40% is required to be deducted in the instant case as it is not a developed area, while the claimants, who filed Cross-objections would submit that as per the judgment of the supreme Court, only 20% is required to be deducted as it is a developed area. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader, however, submits that more than 40% is required to be deducted in the instant case as it is not a developed area, while the claimants, who filed Cross-objections would submit that as per the judgment of the supreme Court, only 20% is required to be deducted as it is a developed area. It is not in dispute that the judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject clearly indicate that deduction should be given towards the development charges depending on various considerations like the developmental activities, location of the land, evenness, proximity to the commercial areas, availability of other infrastructural facilities, etc. The learned Counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to supra wherein the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 11. 81 per Sq. yd. The district Court on reference enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- per sq. yd. On appeals by the State and counter appeals by the claimants, the learned Single judge of the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 79. 98. In doing so the learned Single Judge applied cut of 20% towards developmental charges. The LPAs filed by the claimants were dismissed, against which the further appeals were carried by the claimants before the Supreme Court. But, in the said case, the land acquired was situated in a fully developed area, which requires no further development. The supreme Court observed as follows:"the acquired land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site. The land acquired is a large area and it was not developed. Though may be it had some advantages; a small portion of the large tract was abutting the main road; but it was not the case that any smaller area within the large tract of land acquired was fully developed having all facilities. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and has in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communication etc. , then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and has in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communication etc. , then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. The appellants herein did not establish that the entire area of 84 acres of land acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic amenities. In order to convert the land into plots for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to be earmarked for the abovementioned purposes in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of expenditure for the development area. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be, the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against l/3rd normal deduction. "but, however, on general principles, the supreme Court held thus:"in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant, who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant, who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. There is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. The land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. ". ( 11 ) THUS, taking into consideration the situation of the acquired land, the deduction has to be given and no straightjacket formula can be applied. In the instant case, as observed by the Reference Court, the acquired land is situate in the developing area. Even though all the infrastructural facilities are not fully provided, but yet, it cannot be said that it is situated in a too remote area where 40% could be deducted. In the instant case, as observed by the Reference Court, the acquired land is situate in the developing area. Even though all the infrastructural facilities are not fully provided, but yet, it cannot be said that it is situated in a too remote area where 40% could be deducted. As can be seen from the evidence available on record, the acquired land is situated on main PWD Road and houses have come up on the sites covered in Exs. A-2 to A-4 and around the bus-stand. Thus, it can be seen that even though it is not fully developed, yet, it can be said that it is a substantially developed area. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the case referred to above, we find that 1/3rd deduction would be just and reasonable in the instant case. Taking into consideration Ex. A-3, where Rs. 72/- was fixed per sq. yard and if l/3rd deducation is made, the value would come to Rs. 48/- per sq. yard. Accordingly, we fix the market value at Rs. 48/- per sq. yard, namely, rs. 72-24 (l/3rd) = 48. Thus, the Cross- objections filed by the claimants are allowed to the extent indicated above and the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits including the interest on solatium and additional market value as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagpur improvement Trust v. Vasantrao, (2002) 7 scc 657 .