Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J The appeal and the cross objection are directed against the judgment and award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore dated 14. 1997 made in L.A.O.P. No.108 of 1993. The State through the Referring Officer has preferred Appeal Suit No.966 of 1997 challenging the award of enhanced compensation whereas the claimant has preferred cross objection No. 58 of 1998 challenging the said award contending that the amount awarded by the Court is inadequate and claiming further enhancement of compensation. 2. An extent of 4.01 acres comprised in Survey Nos.63/3B and 63/5B belonging to the claimant (respondent in appeal/cross objector) was sought to be acquired by the Government for a public purpose i.e. for providing house sites to the members of Adhidravida community in Varakkalpattu village, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore District. The draft notification under Section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government on 30.8.1993 and the same was published in the official gazette on 11. 1983. After conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government rejected the objections and decided to proceed with the acquisition. Accordingly, after making necessary declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and publishing the same in the official gazette, enquiry under Section 11 was conducted and ultimately the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in Award No. 11 of 1983-84 dated 28. 1984, awarding compensation taking the market value of the property as on the date of 4(1) notification as Rs. 11.000/- per acre (Rs.27,170/-per hectare). As the claimant (respondent in the appeal/cross objector) was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he made a request to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of reasonable compensation for the land acquired. Accordingly, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore wherein it was taken on file as L.A.O.P. No.188 of 1993. The said Court received the claim statement of the claimant (respondent/cross objector) and the objection filed by the Referring Officer (appellant in the appeal). 3. Accordingly, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore wherein it was taken on file as L.A.O.P. No.188 of 1993. The said Court received the claim statement of the claimant (respondent/cross objector) and the objection filed by the Referring Officer (appellant in the appeal). 3. Based on the said pleadings, the trial Court conducted trial, in which two witnesses were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2 and two documents were marked as Exhibit C-1 and C-2 on the side of the claimant (respondents in the appeal/cross objector). One witness was examined as R.W.I and no document was marked on the side of the Referring officer (respondent in the L.A.O.P./appellant in the appeal). At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court considered the evidence brought on record on either side, both oral and documentary, in the light of the arguments advanced and upon such a consideration, fixed the market value of the property under acquisition at Rs.90,000/-per hectare. The learned Subordinate Judge also awarded (interest for the excess amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the possession of the property was taken by the Government till date of payment. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded as cost towards advocate’s fee. 4. Aggrieved by the award of the trial Court, the State has preferred the above said appeal A.S. No.966 of 1997 through the Referring Officer viz. Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, Cuddalore challenging the award of enhanced compensation on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. Expressing dissatisfaction with the award of the trial Court and contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, the claimant/respondent in the appeal ha preferred the above said cross objection No. 58 of 1998 on the grounds set out in the memorandum of cross objection. 5. The following points have arisen for consideration commonly in both the appeal and the cross-objection: “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below is excessive requiring downward revision as claimed by the appellant? 2. Whether the compensation award by the Court below is inadequate requiring upward revision as claimed by the respondent/cross objector?” 6. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant and Mr. V. Ramamoorthy, learned counsel representing the respondent/cross objector. 2. Whether the compensation award by the Court below is inadequate requiring upward revision as claimed by the respondent/cross objector?” 6. This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader representing the appellant and Mr. V. Ramamoorthy, learned counsel representing the respondent/cross objector. The materials available on record were also perused. 7. There is no dispute regarding the extent of land, title of the claimant before acquisition and the classification of the land acquired by the Government exercising its power of compulsory acquisition from the respondent/cross-objector/claimant. On the other hand, the dispute is regarding the assessment of market values as on the date of notification under Section 4(i) for awarding reasonable compensation for the land compulsorily acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer collected particulars of a total number of 86 sale deeds and placed them in the list of data sales for his consideration to fix the market value of the property acquired. Out of the said 86 sale deeds, rejecting 84, the remaining two sale deeds dated 22. 1981 and 3. 1981 respectively pertaining to one and the same survey number namely, Survey No.87/6 were taken as data sales reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property. The Land Acquisition Officer, based on the said sale deeds, fixed the market value as on the date of 4(1) notification at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per acre which is equivalent to Rs.27,170/-per hectare. No doubt those two sale deeds took place within three years prior to the date of 4(1) notification. 8. But, when the matter came up before the trial Court, the respondent/cross objector/claimant alone produced two sale deeds, one of the year 1984 and the other of the year 1982 as Exhibit C-1 and C-2, to show that the market value adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer was incorrect. Though, Land Acquisition Officer might have relied on two sale deeds pertaining to one and the same survey number, as reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property, he has not chosen to produce authenticated copies of those sale deeds to be market as exhibit on the side of the Referring Officer before the Court below. Though, Land Acquisition Officer might have relied on two sale deeds pertaining to one and the same survey number, as reflecting the correct market value of the acquired property, he has not chosen to produce authenticated copies of those sale deeds to be market as exhibit on the side of the Referring Officer before the Court below. The respondent/cross-objector/claimant seems to have claimed that though the property acquired was a dry land, it had potentiality to be developed into house sites, the property should have been valued by taking square feet as the unit and that the market value should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. 9. The learned Subordinate Judge, after considering the amenities available to the acquired land came to the conclusion that the same did have the potentiality to be developed into house sites and hence the value of the property should be assessed at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. On that basis, the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the market value of the property at Rs.90,000/-per acre and assessed the total market value as on the date of 4(1) notification at Rs.3,60,900/-. Over and above the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,08,270/- was awarded as solatium at the rate of 50%. For the excess compensation awarded by the trial Court, the trial Court has directed payment of interest from the date of taking possession till the date of reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 9% per annum. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader argued that the learned Subordinate Judge adopted an erroneous approach by assuming appellate power over the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and because of such an erroneous approach alone, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not a reasonable one. It is the further contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that the learned Subordinate judge should have rejected the plea of the respondent/cross objector/claimant for assessing the market value of the property taking a sq.ft. as the unit; that the Court below should not have taken sq.ft. It is the further contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader that the learned Subordinate judge should have rejected the plea of the respondent/cross objector/claimant for assessing the market value of the property taking a sq.ft. as the unit; that the Court below should not have taken sq.ft. as the unit for assessing the market value of the property; that even if it is assumed that the property did have the potentiality for being developed as house sites in the near future, certain deductions should have been made towards development charges for converting the agricultural land into house sites and that since the trial Court has not chosen to deduct any amount towards developmental charges, the award of the Court below could be sustained and hence the same should be modified by reducing the compensation. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/cross-objector/claimant contended that; in the absence of contra evidence, the Court below should have accepted the evidence of the witnesses examined on the side of the claimant to the effect that the sale price quoted in Exhibit C-1 was much below the market value accepted and that compensation should have been awarded fixing the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.5/- sq.ft. in accordance with the testimony of the witnesses examined on the side of the claimant. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/cross-objector/claimant that the award of the Court below suffers from infirmity so far as additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award or date of taking possession was not awarded in accordance with Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and that the award of interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession till the date of claim statement alone, that too at the rate of 9%, is against the statutory provision under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act directing payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. 12. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader and by the learned counsel for the respondent/cross objector/claimant. 13. 12. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader and by the learned counsel for the respondent/cross objector/claimant. 13. It is a well settled proposition that the proceedings before the Court in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act should not be construed to be an appeal whereby the correctness or otherwise of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer can be considered by the Court; that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is nothing but an offer made by the Government as compensation for the land acquired and that the claimant who seeks enhancement of compensation shall be in the position of a plaintiff and the Referring Officer shall be in the position of a defendant in L.A.O.Ps under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the mere absence of sufficient evidence justifying the amount awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer shall not be enough to hold that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation is inadequate. The claimant, whose position is analogous to that of a plaintiff, shall have the burden to prove that he is entitled to the amount claimed by him or more amount than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, as reasonable compensation for the land acquired from him. 14. On the side of the respondent cross-objector/claimant, his father V.M. Vidhyanandan deposed as C.W.I and produced a registration copy of a sale deed dated 110. 1984 bearing document No.1543 of 1984 registered on the file of Sub Registrar as Exhibit C-1 and Another registration copy of document dated 12. 1982 bearing document No.399 of 1982 registered on the file of the very same Sub-Registrar’s Office as Exhibit C-2, to show that the market value of the acquired land was much more than the one adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of 4(1) notification. As per Exhibit C-1, the father of C.W.1 had executed a sale deed in favour of one Chinnasamy Reddiar as the member of Varakkalpattu Village Cooperative Agricultural Services (Varakkalpattu Grama Kooturavu Sevai Sangam) in respect of an extent of 7,210 sq.ft. land comprised in Survey No. 226/3 of the said village for a sum of Rs.14,420/-. The same works out at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. land comprised in Survey No. 226/3 of the said village for a sum of Rs.14,420/-. The same works out at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. The other sale deed namely, Exhibit C-2 produced on the side of the claimant was in respect of a housing site having an extent of 2524 1/2 sq.ft. comprised in Survey Nos. 231/3 and 230 in Varakkalpattu Village. As per Exhibit C-2, the market value comes to Rs.1.25 per sq.ft. It is true that the claimant produced those two sale deeds in an attempt to show that the neighbouring lands had been sold as house sites on sq.ft. basis. However, the learned Subordinate Judge chose to rely on Exhibit C-1, as the document reflecting the correct market value as on the date of 4(1) notification. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on the evidence of C.W.1 and Exhibit C-1 and C-2 has arrived at the conclusion that the petition land no doubt remained an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, but had the potentiality for being developed into house sites as nearby lands had already been sold as house sites. Based on the said finding, the learned Subordinate Judge seems to have decided to value the land on sq.ft. basis. 15. Excepting the interested testimony of the Land Acquisition Officer, who deposed as R.W.1, there is no contra evidence on the side of the appellant herein to the effect that the petition land did not have potentiality for being developed as house sites. In fact, R.W.1, in his cross-examination pleaded ignorance as to whether Iyanar temple is situated in the land adjoining the acquired land and whether there are houses in the lands surrounding the temple. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no defect or infirmity in the findings of the Court below that the acquired land did have the potentiality of being developed into house sites and that hence the same should be valued on sq.ft. basis. 16. Even though Exhibit C-1 and C-2 were produced on the side of the claimant himself it seems Exhibit C-2 was produced only for the purpose of showing that a nearby land had been sold as a house site and that Exhibit C-1 alone was produced for proving the market value of the acquired land. basis. 16. Even though Exhibit C-1 and C-2 were produced on the side of the claimant himself it seems Exhibit C-2 was produced only for the purpose of showing that a nearby land had been sold as a house site and that Exhibit C-1 alone was produced for proving the market value of the acquired land. Accepting the said contention, the learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to prefer Exhibit C-1 as reflecting the market value of the property acquired. It is true that the said document came into existence subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 11. 1983. No other document has been produced on the side of the respondent and the only document produced on the side of the claimant to prove the market value of the property as on the date of notification was Exhibit C-1. The leaned Subordinate Judge chose to accept the said document as the one reflecting the market value of the acquired land, even though the same happened to be brought into existence subsequent to the date of 4(1) notification. The leaned Special Government Pleader also, during his arguments, conceded that the appellant might not have any objection for assessing the market value of the property on the basis of Exhibit C-1 as the. Referring Officer had failed to produce any other document to show that the market value of the property as on the date of notification was less than what was stated in Exhibit C-1 and that on the other hand in view of the fact that a large extent of agricultural “land was to be assessed on sq.ft. basis holding the land did have the potentiality of being developed into house sites, the learned Subordinate Judge should have deducted certain percentage as development charges. This Court finds force and substance in the above said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the Court below has committed an error in not allowing a deduction at certain percentage from the market value as development charges. On the other hand, relying on the evidence adduced by C.W.1 and C.W.2 a weak attempt has been made on the side of the respondent/cross-objector that though the document Exhibit C-1 reflected a market value of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. On the other hand, relying on the evidence adduced by C.W.1 and C.W.2 a weak attempt has been made on the side of the respondent/cross-objector that though the document Exhibit C-1 reflected a market value of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. the said deed was executed for a lower price in favour of the cooperative society of which the vendor was a temporary President and that hence the market value should have been fixed at the rate of Rs.5/- sq.ft. The said contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/cross-objector/ claimant cannot be countenanced. If at all the respondent/cross-objector/claimant wanted the Court not to rely on the recitals found in Exhibit C-1 regarding the market value, he should have produced other documents in support of his contention, that nearby lands were sold as house sites at the rate of Rs.5/- sq.ft. during the period in which the Section 4(1) notification was made. The respondent/cross-objector/claimant having produced Exhibit C-1 and C-2 along should have elected to base his claim on either of those documents. He cannot expect the Court to totally disregard those two documents and accept the oral evidence of C.W.1 to fix the market value at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below has rightly relied on Exhibit C-1 to be the document reflecting the correct market value of the property as on the date of Section 4 (1) notification and hence no interference is warranted in this regard. 17. In the foregoing discussions it has been held that the Court below has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the property should be valued on sq.ft. basis as it was having potentiality to be developed into house sites and that the market value fixed by the Court below on the basis of Exhibit C-1 at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. is quite reasonable and hence no interference in this regard can be made. On the other hand, it has also been indicated supra, a certain percentage of deduction from the total market value should be made when large extent of property is valued on sq.ft. basis considering its potentiality for being developed into house sites. is quite reasonable and hence no interference in this regard can be made. On the other hand, it has also been indicated supra, a certain percentage of deduction from the total market value should be made when large extent of property is valued on sq.ft. basis considering its potentiality for being developed into house sites. In this regard, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, the deduction to be made in this regard may range from 20% to 45%. Taking the extent of the property and the other facts, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice can be sub-served by allowing a deduction of 20% from the total market value arrived at @Rs.2/- sq.ft. As per Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent/cross-objector/claimant is entitled to the calculation of additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of award or the date of taking possession which one is earlier. The learned Subordinate Judge has not adverted to the said Section and hence erroneously omitted to allow additional market value at the above said rate. 18. As per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent/cross-objector/claimant is also entitled to an amount equal to 30% of the market value (excluding additional market vale calculated under Section 23(1)(a)) as solatium. As per Section 28, the respondent/cross-objector/claimant shall be entitled to an interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. The said Section was also not properly adverted to by the Court below and that is why the Court below has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum alone, that too from the date of taking possession till the date of the claim petition. The said approach made by the learned Subordinate judge is erroneous and hence liable to modified as indicated above. 19. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal and the cross-objection succeed in part and the award of the Court below deserves to be modified as indicated supra. 20. The said approach made by the learned Subordinate judge is erroneous and hence liable to modified as indicated above. 19. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal and the cross-objection succeed in part and the award of the Court below deserves to be modified as indicated supra. 20. In the result, Appeal Suit No. 966 of 1997 preferred by the Referring Officer and Cross Objection No. 58 of 1998 preferred by the respondent/cross-objector/claimant are partly allowed and the decree (award) dated 14. 1997 passed by the Court below is modified as under: (i) The value of the acquired property shall be calculated at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. for the entire extent from which 20% shall be deducted towards development charges and the balance alone shall be reckoned as the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. (ii) For the amount thus arrived at as the market value, additional market value as per Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Section 4(1) notification, namely 30.8.1983, till the date of award, namely, 23. 1984 since admittedly possession was taken several years later. (iii) Solatium as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 30% on the market value (excluding additional market value) and the total amount of compensation shall be arrived at by adding the market value, solatium and the additional market value. (iv) From the total amount of compensation, the amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer namely, the Special Tahsildar (Adidravidar Welfare), Cuddalore shall be deducted, and the balance shall be paid as enhanced compensation to the respondent/cross-objector/claimant. (v) For the enhanced compensation thus awarded, the respondent cross-objector/claimant shall be entitled to an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from 5. 1992, the admitted date on which possession was taken and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date on which the amount was deposited pursuant to the direction of this Court. 1992, the admitted date on which possession was taken and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date on which the amount was deposited pursuant to the direction of this Court. (vi) As the respondent cross-objector/claimant was allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the appellant to the credit of the L.A.O.P. pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and the balance 50% alone still lies in fixed deposit, the respondent cross-objector/claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount payable to him as per the present judgment and the balance if any shall be refunded to the appellant. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.