JUDGMENT The instant cross-objection in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4730 of 2002 by cross-objector is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2002 in LAC No. 87 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur,' on the ground that, enhancement of market value made by Reference Court is inadequate and the cross-objector is entitled for further enhancement of compensation. In this cross-objection, the cross-objector has restricted his claim at the rate of Rs. 1,80,0001- per acre, which comes to Rs. 1,93,5001- for 1 acre 3 guntas. 2. Land bearing Block No. 615/A/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situate at Indi Town coming within the limits of Indi Town Municipality has been notified and acquired by State Government through respondent herein for the purpose of "construction of microwave tower and its building" vide its preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on 11th May, 1989. The Land Acquisition Officer, by relying upon the sales statistics and other material available on file, has determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 12,0001- per acre by has award dated 30th April, 1991. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant-cross-objector herein has filed application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate and further requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court. The Reference Court, in turn, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, placing reliance on Ex. P. 5-the registered sale deed and khata issued by the Competent Authority, has determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 8.33 per sq. ft., the total market value of which comes to Rs. 3,62,854.80 per acre. Out of the said amount, the Reference Court has given deduction towards the development charges at the rate of 86.33% and after deduction, the income per acre comes to Rs. 49,602.26 and for 1 acre 3 guntas, the market value comes to Rs. 54,322.42. The Reference Court has also awarded all the statutory benefits permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. 49,602.26 and for 1 acre 3 guntas, the market value comes to Rs. 54,322.42. The Reference Court has also awarded all the statutory benefits permissible under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. It is the case of claimant - cross-objector that, the said determination made by Reference Court is contrary to oral and documentary evidence and that, the Reference Court has committed an error in giving deduction at the rate of 86.33% out of which 53% for formation and 33 1/3 % for development charges, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court and the same is not justifiable, for the reason that, the Reference Court has taken into consideration the potentiality of the land and after appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 2 who is a none other than the Chief Officer of the Municipality of Indi town. Therefore, the said judgment and award passed by Reference Court is liable to be modified. However, due to financial constraints, the claimant - cross-objector has restricted his claim at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre and for 1 acre 3 guntas it comes to Rs. 1,93,500/-. Having regard to this background, the cross-objector has presented the instant cross-objection for modification of the impugned judgnlent and award passed by Reference Court to the above extent. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for claimant-cross-objector and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent. After careful perusal of the original records available on file and the judgment and award passed by Reference Court, it emerges on the face of the material available on record including the judgment and award passed by Reference Court that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error much less material irregularity insofar as it relates to giving deduction towards development charges at the rate of 33-1/3%. In respect of deduction towards development charges, the appropriate deduction as per the building bye-laws is 53% and therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have given 33-1/3% towards the development charges in respect of the said property. The Reference Court, after appreciation of oral evidence and by safely placing reliance on Ex. In respect of deduction towards development charges, the appropriate deduction as per the building bye-laws is 53% and therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have given 33-1/3% towards the development charges in respect of the said property. The Reference Court, after appreciation of oral evidence and by safely placing reliance on Ex. P. 5-registered sale deed, and taking into consideration the non-agricultural potentiality of the land, which has been notified and acquired for the purpose of construction of microwave tower and its building coming within the municipal area, as per the evidence of P.W. 2 who has stated in unequivocal terms and who is none other than the Chief Officer of the municipality, has determined the market value. The Reference Court ought to have given 10% towards the development charges for developing the lands which have been notified and acquired. It is significant to note that, the land in question has been notified and acquired for the purpose of construction of microwave tower and its building not for the purpose of formation of layout and distribution of sites to site-less persons or weaker sections. In the instant case, the land has been notified and acquired for a specific purpose, i.e., microwave tower. In such a case, the Reference Court might have given a just and reasonable deduction towards the development charges. It reveals from the records available on file and the observations made by Reference Court that, the land in question notified and acquired was classified and shown in the relevant records as block number and not as survey number, as referred above. If that is the case on hand then, while giving a specific finding that, the land in question has got non-agricultural potentiality, the Reference Court might have given deduction at 10% and the same would have been just and reasonable instead of giving deduction at 33-1/3%. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be modified following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v Jainul Islam and Another1, wherein, the Apex Court, upholding the judgment and award passed by another High Court giving 10% deduction towards development of the lands notified, has held that, 10% towards development charges is just and reasonable. If the principles of law laid down by Apex Court in the above case is taken into consideration and the same is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am of the considered view that, the deduction towards development charges awarded by Reference Court at the rate of 86.33% is on the higher side and the same is liable to be reduced to 63%, out of which 53% for formation as per the building bye-laws and another 10% towards the development charges and the same will be just and reasonable. 5. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the judgment and award passed by Reference Court is liable to be modified by giving 53% deduction as per the building bye-laws and another 10% deduction towards development charges and the net income comes to Rs. 2,45,743/- for 1 acre 3 guntas. 6. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant - cross-objector has restricted this claim at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre and the total amount comes to Rs. 1,93,500/- for 1 acre 3 guntas. The said determination of the market value will be just and reasonable having regard to non-agricultural potentiality and also taking into consideration the nature of land notified and acquired and the purpose for which it has been notified. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant cross-objection filed by cross-objector is allowed. The market value in respect of the land in question is determined at the rate of Rs. 1,93,500/- for 1 acre 3 guntas, at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, instead of Rs. 49,602.26 per acre awarded by Reference Court. 8. However, it is needless to state that, the claimant-cross-objector shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits, as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 9. With these observations, the cross-objection filed by cross-objector partly succeeds and stands disposed of.