Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and award (decree) dated 31.07.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.69/1994. The Government has acquired an extent of 1.35 acres (0.54.5 hectares) comprised in Survey No.78/2D, 78/2E, 78/2F1 and 78/2F2 in Kottakulam village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, which form the single block, for providing house sites to the members of Adhi Dravida community of the said village. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 17.09.1991 and was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.10.1991. The same was published in the area on 011. 1991 and enquiry under Section 5A was conducted on 012. 1991. The proposal to acquire the land was confirmed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government and the same published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.10.1992 and in local vernacular dailies on 30.10.1992 and 310. 1992. The same was published in the area on 211. 1992. 2. Thereafter award enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer in which the Land Acquisition Officer considered particulars of 48 sales that had taken place in and around acquired land within 3 years prior to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition officer has taken into consideration only one sale deed and discarded remaining sale deeds as not reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property for various reasons cited in his award. A sale deed dated 30.03.1989 bearing document No.722/1989 of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chengam under which an extent of 0.34 acre of well irrigated dry land comprised in Survey No.34/10 had been sold for a sum of Rs.5,780/-, shown as item 8 in the sales statistics collected by the Land Acquisition Officer was taken as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the property acquired. On the basis of the said sale deed, the market value of the acquired property was fixed at Rs.17,000/-per acre (Rs.170/- per cent). Accordingly, for the above said acquired land of 0.54.5 hectare (1.35 acre), the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation as follows: 3. On the basis of the said sale deed, the market value of the acquired property was fixed at Rs.17,000/-per acre (Rs.170/- per cent). Accordingly, for the above said acquired land of 0.54.5 hectare (1.35 acre), the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation as follows: 3. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents herein/claimants received the amount under protest and requested for a reference being made to the court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly a reference was made to the court below under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for fixing the correct and reasonable amount of compensation to which the appellants therein/claimants would be entitled. 4. Before the Land Acquisition Officer and before the court below, the appellants herein/claimants claimed that the market value of the acquired property should be fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per cent and the well should be valued at Rs.50,000/-. On the other hand, the Referring Officer contended before the court below that what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was perfectly reasonable and no enhancement of compensation should be awarded. Based on the said pleadings, the court below conducted trial in which three witnesses including the first respondent herein/first claimant were examined as PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 was marked on the side of the respondents herein/ claimants. On the side of the appellant/referring officer, two witness were examined as RW1 and RW2 and four documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai considered the evidence and allowed the claim for enhancement of compensation. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the market value reflected in the sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer as the data sale would be taken as the basis on which the market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification could be ascertained. At the same time, the learned Subordinate Judge held that since the said sale took place 3 years prior to the date of 4(1) notification, it was appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired property as on the date of 4(1) notification by allowing a substantial increase from the value reflected by the data sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs.3,924/-per cent (Rs.3,93,400/- per acre) and on that basis awarded enhancement of compensation as follows:- The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.03.1984, the date on which possession was admittedly taken, for the period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter. 6. Being aggrieved against the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.69/1994 dated 31.07.1996, the appellant herein/Referring officer has preferred the present appeal in A.S.No.515 of 1997 in this Court. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is :- 8. This Court heard the arguments of Mr.Arivudai Nambi, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and the rival submissions made by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the Respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 9. A total extent of 1.35 acres (0.54.5 hectares) comprised in Survey No.78/2D, 78/2E, 78/2F1 and 78/2F2 in Kottakulam village forming a single block was acquired for providing house sites to the members of Adhi Dravida community of the said village. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on the sale that took place on 30.03.1989 in respect of 34 cents of land comprised in Survey No.34/10 as the data sale reflecting the correct market value of the acquired land and fixed the same at the rate of Rs.170/- per cent (Rs.17,000/- per acre). The correctness of the selection of the data sale as the one reflecting the market value of the acquired property was questioned by the respondents herein/claimants before the court below. The court below, on an appreciation of evidence adduced on both sides, came to the conclusion that such a selection was not proper. The reasons assigned are: Whether the amount fixed by the court below as compensation is excessive requiring downward revision? 1. The property sold under Ex.B3 was admittedly situated at a distance of more than a kilometer from the acquired land; 2. The said land is not comparable with the acquired land as the acquired land lies in between the grama natham of the village and the then existing harijan colony; And 3. The acquired land was potential for being developed into house sites. 10. The said land is not comparable with the acquired land as the acquired land lies in between the grama natham of the village and the then existing harijan colony; And 3. The acquired land was potential for being developed into house sites. 10. For the very same reasons, the court below chose to accept Ex.A1, the certified copy sale deed dated 28.08.1991, as the document based on which the market value of the acquired property could be fixed. Under the said sale deed, an extent of 1118 sq.ft. in grama natham of the above said village bearing Survey No.77/2B had been sold for a price of Rs.10,000/-. However, the market rate quoted in the said sale deed was a little more, namely Rs.10,062/-. Taking the said sale as the data sale reflecting the market value of the acquired property, the court below has fixed the market value at Rs.9/-per sq.ft. As already pointed out, the property sold under Ex.A1 was not only nearer to the acquired property but also was comparable to the same in all respects because the acquired property is admittedly abutting the grama natham on one side and the colony on the other side. The purchaser under Ex.A1 has also been examined as a witness on the side of the claimant (PW3), who spoke to the effect that the said sale was genuine and the price quoted therein was the correct market value. Therefore this court is not able to find any defect or infirmity in the selection made by the court below between Ex.B3 and Ex.A1. The court below righttly held that the document Ex.A1 alone reflected the correct market value of the acquired land as on the date of 4(1) notification. The decision made by the court below to fix the value the acquired property as a property having the potential for being developed into house sites and taking a sq.ft. as the unit does not call for any interference. 11. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that while assessing the market value of a larger property taking its potentiality to be developed into house sites, necessary deductions for developmental charges should have been made and that the award passed by the court below requires interference in this regard, as no deduction was made by the court below. Admittedly an extent of 1.35 acres as a single block belonging to the respondents/claimants was acquired for being assigned to the members of Adhi Dravida community of the said village as house sites. If such a large extent of land is to be developed into a lay-out of house sites, at least 20% of the land shall be set apart for forming streets and roads. That apart minimum expenditure should be incurred for developing the said land into pucca house sites to be compared with a land which had already been developed into house-sites. Therefore, this court sees force and substance in the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that while adopting the value found in Ex.A1 to calculate the market value of the acquired land, deduction for development of the said land into house sites should have been made. Taking into consideration the extent of land, situation of land and all other attending circumstances, this court feels that it shall be just and reasonable to allow a deduction of 20% from the total market value calculated on the basis of the market value reflected in Ex.A1. For the above said reasons, this court comes to the conclusion that the decree of the court below is liable to be modified to the extent indicated above so far as the calculation of market value of the land is concerned. Regarding the fixation of the value of the well and value of the standing trees, the learned Special Government Pleader conceded that the appellant did not have any grievance. Hence the same has got to be confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation to which the respondents/claimants shall be entitled is fixed as follows: The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.03.1984, the date on which possession was admittedly taken, for the period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter. 12. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the court below is modified by reducing the enhanced compensation payable to the respondents/ claimants to Rs.6,95,453.72 from Rs.8,64,1165. In all other respects, the award of the court below shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to cost.