JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.1993 and award dated 21.12.1993 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 80/89 on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby reference was allowed and compensation was enhanced. 2. Pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question was acquired and the Collector assessed the value and passed award and the claimant received the amount under protest and wanted the matter to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. 3. The case of the claimant in brief is that the State of Bihar launched a proceeding for acquisition of the land for the purpose of Akaswani and Durdarshan, which was numbered as L.A. Case No. 15/87-88 the lands bearing khata No. 37, plot Nos. 326/3-A and 326/3-B, an area of o.36 decimals and o.46 decimals of village Bairiya, P.S. Daltonganj, district Palamau were acquired by notification dated 14.9.1987 and the State of Bihar prepared an award being Award No. 4 and assessed the compensation amounting to Rs. 44,483/- and the same was paid to the petitioner-respondent on 18.4.1988 and the petitioner-respondent received the same under protest. The further case of the respondent is that the appellants arbitrarily fixed the rate much below the price prevailing in the area and also did not consider the future prospect and the modern facilities in or about the land while determining the compensation of the acquired land. The claimant had claimed that prior to the notification the market rate of tanr land was Rs. 4,000/- per decimal and Part-III tanr land was Rs. 2,000/- per decimal. The claimant asserted that all modern facilities such as provision of electricity, middle school, lower school, High School and constituent college are available near the land acquired and also there is irrigational facilities and further that about 200 yards from the land there is a market known as Krishi Bazar of the District and the land is surrounded from all sides by pakka pitch road. There are flour mills, pulse mills etc. near the land. There are flour mills, pulse mills etc. near the land. The claimant further asserted that out of 96 decimals of land belonging to the petitioner only 82 decimals of land of that area has been acquired and rest of the land has become valueless due to non-approaching of road to that place due to acquisition of the land by the authorities. 4. The learned Court below recorded the evidence of the applicant as well as opposite party both oral and documentary and after considering the evidence of both the sides came to a finding and assessed the land @ Rs. 2,000/- per decimal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the valuation of the land assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge, but on going through the evidence of witnesses of both the sides, both oral and documentary, I am of the view that the land has actually been properly assessed and the finding of the learned Court below that land is @ Rs. 2,000/- per decimal was quite just and proper in view of the evidence of witnesses recorded by the learned Court below of both the sides. However, another grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that out of the amount prepared in award at least 25% of the amount should be deducted towards development charge. In this connection, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon III 2003 CLT 160 (SC), wherein it has been held that 25% amount must be deducted towards development charge out of the compensation awarded to the claimants. The learned Counsel also relied upon and other similar decisions. 6. In the instant case only 82 decimals of land of two plots have been acquired and it has come in evidence that on all sides of the land there are roads but in the case, reference about which has been made, 27 acres of land was acquired and thus 27 acres of land is a big area and development of that area was necessary and, therefore, deduction of 25% of the awarded amount was necessary for the development of the area. But in the instant case only 82 decimals of land has been acquired and as per evidence of witnesses the area is well developed and on all sides there are roads and, therefore, in the instant case, prayer for allowing deduction of 25% from the awarded amount does not appear to be justified and the point is not valid one. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.