Judgment :- Aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,42,647/- for the land acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978, the Government has preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Revision arises on the following facts:- An extent of 0.75.5 Hectare of land situate in S.No.105/17 in Sakkarakuppam Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to homeless Adidravidars under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (for short "the Act"). Under the provisions of the Act, Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in the North Arcot Ambedhkar District Gazette dated 01.08.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in Award No.18/96-97 dated 27.03.1997. Taking the Data Sale Deed vide Document No.1249/96 dated 010. 1996, compensation was fixed at Rs.20,000/-per acre. Award was passed for Rs.42,780/-. 3. Aggrieved by the fixation of Market Value, the Respondent has filed an Appeal in L.A.A.No.1 of 2006 under Section 9 of the Act on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupattur for enhancement of compensation. Placing reliance upon Ex.A.3 – Sale Deed (dated 30.04.1996), the Market value was enhanced and fixed at Rs.17/- per sq.ft. The Sub-Court awarded compensation of Rs.15,42,647/- and ordered interest at different rates of 9%, 12% and 15% on Rs.13,78,632/-. 4. Assailing the mode of fixation of Market Value, learned Special Government Pleader has contended that when acquisition is in respect of large extent of land, enhancement of compensation on the basis of document for a smaller extent of land is unsustainable. It was further submitted that the land acquired was only Agricultural land and Court below has erroneously fixed the Market Value as if it is a house site. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 12 of the Act prescribes uniform rate of interest and the Impugned Order awarding Interest at different rates is erroneous. .5. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the land acquired is abutting National Highways Road and already a developed area and hence, the Court below has rightly calculated the Market Value on the basis of Ex.A.3, which is the Sale Deed for the next Survey Number to the acquired land. It was further submitted that the Court below has rightly given 33.33% deduction for development of the large tracts to make smaller plots. It was further submitted that the Court below has rightly given 33.33% deduction for development of the large tracts to make smaller plots. Learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance upon the decisions reported in Bhagat Ram ..Vs.. The State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1981 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 163), Bhagwathula Samanna and others ..Vs.. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer ( 1991 (4) S.C.C. 506 ), Special Tahsildar ..Vs.. Abdul Raguman (A.I.R. 1996 MADRAS 198) and Special Land Acquisition Officer ..Vs.. Mohd. Hanif Sahib (A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1558). 6. The term "Market Value" has been defined through judicial pronouncement to meet the price that a Willing Purchaser should pay to Willing Seller. However, there is mathematical formula for the same. It is a settled law that while determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired, the market value therefore indisputably has to be ascertained and the best method would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land (vide UNION OF INDIA ..VS.. PRAMOD GUPTA (2005 (12) S.C.C. 1). 7. For the grant of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the Market Value at Rs.20,000/- per acre and awarded compensation of Rs.42,780/-. Ex.B.3 – Document No.1249/96 (dated 010. 1996) was taken as the Data Land for fixation of Market Value. Under Ex.B.3 – Sale Deed (dated 010. 1996) 1.42 acres of land in S.No.166/6,3,4 was sold for Rs.20,000/- per acre. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 01.08.1996. Award was passed on 27.03.1997. Under Ex.B.3 – Sale Deed, which is about five months prior to Notification, the Data land is sold as Agricultural land. 8. The Court below has fixed the Market Value calculating the square feet value on the basis of Ex.A.3 – Sale Deed. Ex.A.3 – Sale Deed dated 30.04.1996 is the Sale Deed for an extent of 4288 sq.ft., sold for Rs.1,10,000/-. The Court below calculated the square feet value at the rate of Rs.265. For development, 33.33% was deducted and square feet value was fixed at Rs.54. .9. The Court below has referred to various aspects regarding location of acquired land and its potentialities for development. This Court does not propose to elaborately go into those aspects. Suffice it to note that when large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of smaller properties do not offer a proper guideline. 10. .9. The Court below has referred to various aspects regarding location of acquired land and its potentialities for development. This Court does not propose to elaborately go into those aspects. Suffice it to note that when large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of smaller properties do not offer a proper guideline. 10. It is not uncommon when proposal for acquisition takes, Sale Deeds are executed and registered so as to boost the value of acquired land. Pointing out such instances, in the decision reported in Kummari Veeraiah and others ..Vs.. State of A.P. ( 1995 (4) S.C.C. 136 ) the Supreme Court has held, "...The certified copies of the sale deeds are admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under Section 51-A of the Act since owners would be reluctant to part with their original sale deeds. But, unless either the vendor or the vendee has been examined as witness to testify not only the consideration paid but also their specific knowledge and the circumstances in which the Sale Deed came to be executed, nearness to the lands etc., the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine market value of the acquired lands. The true nature and situation of the respective lands are relevant and germane as comparable sales for determination of the compensation and are required to be brought on record through admissible evidence and tested on the anvil of common experience. ...... It is common knowledge and experience that the proposal for acquisition takes long time for arriving at a decision. In the meantime, it would be an open card and known to everyone, in particular, to the owners of the land and persons in the neighbourhood. Therefore, it is not uncommon to have sale deeds executed and registered in the interregnum so as to boost the value of the acquired lands. The High Court had, therefore, rightly excluded the documents..." (Underlining added) 11. It is well settled instances of Sale Deed regarding smaller lands as compared to the land under acquisition will not be proper. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to a few decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector of Lakhimpur ..Vs.. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2015), Prithvi Raj Taneja ..Vs.. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to a few decisions of the Supreme Court in Collector of Lakhimpur ..Vs.. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2015), Prithvi Raj Taneja ..Vs.. State of M.P (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1560) and Kausalya Devi Bogra ..Vs.. Land Acquisition Officer. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in 1991 (4) S.C.C. 506 , learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that when large tracts of land is acquired and comparable sale of smaller land is available, deduction of 1/3 value of the comparable sale as developmental charges need not be resorted to when the land acquired is situated in an already developed area. It was further submitted that though the acquired land is situate abutting National Highways in a developed area, Court below has deducted 33.33% and the compensation awarded by the Court is reasonable and cannot be interfered with. 12. Except the evidence of P.W.1, no other evidence was adduced showing that the area is already developed. Apart from Ex.A.3, no other documents had been produced. Ex.B.3 – Data Sale Deed is just five months prior to the acquisition of the land and the land was sold as Agricultural land. It therefore follows that the area is still underdeveloped. In referring to fixation of compensation for such underdeveloped areas, in the decision reported in Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village ..Vs.. Nookala Rajamallu and others ( 2003 (12) S.C.C. 334 ) the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines for fixation of market value:- "...9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:- i. When sale is within a reasonable time of the date of Notification under Section 4(1); ii. it should be a bona fide transaction; iii.it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and iv.it should possess similar advantages. 10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (vide Special Land Acquisition Officer ..Vs.. T.Adinarayan Setty (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 429)). .11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. 10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (vide Special Land Acquisition Officer ..Vs.. T.Adinarayan Setty (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 429)). .11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price, the profits on the venture, etc., are to be made. (vide Administrator General of West Bengal ..Vs.. Collector, Varanasi ( 1988 (2) S.C.C. 150 )). In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha ..Vs.. Amritsar Improvement Trust ( 1982 (1) S.C.C. 419 ) the deduction for such development was taken as 53%. .12. In K.S.Shivadevamma ..Vs.. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer ( 1996 (2) S.C.C. 62 ) this Court held as follows:- ."10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal." 13. On applying the principles of law as set out in various decisions referred to above to the facts of the case, we feel that deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ex.B.4 would bring the rate per square yard to be around Rs.40. The rate is accordingly fixed......" Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, in the present case, in my considered view, deduction at the rate of 53% from the value indicated in Ex.A.3 would be appropriate. 13. As per Ex.A.3, Square Feet value is Rs.265. If we adopt deduction at the rate of 53% per sq.ft., the value to be deducted is Rs.13.59 rounded to Rs.160. Value for the square feet will be Rs.12.05 (Rs.25.65 – Rs.13.60). The compensation payable to the Petitioner is calculated at Rs.10,81,008/- as under:- Value Per Square Feet ......... Rs.12.05 Market value for acquisition of land 81,096 x 12.05 ......... Rs.9,77,206.80 15% Solatium 9,77,206.80 x 15/100 ......... Rs.1,46,581.02 Rs.11,23,787.82 Amount already received by Respondent ......... Rs. 42,780.00 Amount payable to the Respondent ......... Rs.10,81,007.82 Rounded to ......... Rs.10,81,008/- 14. The Subordinate Court awarded different rates of interest at 9%, 12% and 15% for different periods of time. Section 12 of the Act prescribes uniform rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Hence, the different rate of interest ordered by the Court below cannot be sustained. 6% interest is payable on the compensation amount of Rs.9,77,206.80, which is the amount deducting 15% of Solatium. 15. The Impugned Order dated 21.03.2006 of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur in L.A.A.No.1 of 2006 is modified and this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. Hence, the different rate of interest ordered by the Court below cannot be sustained. 6% interest is payable on the compensation amount of Rs.9,77,206.80, which is the amount deducting 15% of Solatium. 15. The Impugned Order dated 21.03.2006 of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur in L.A.A.No.1 of 2006 is modified and this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. It is held that the Respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.10,81,008/- and interest rate at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.9,77,206.80 from 27.03.1997 till the date of payment. No costs. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.