Judgment :- This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 10. 1993 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai made in LAOP No.82 of 1992. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader(AS) appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The nutshell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this LAOP would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 0.92.0 hectares in S.Nos.65/9, 65/10, 65/11, 65/12 and 65/13 in Melvilvarayanallur Village, for the purpose of providing housing sites to the Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award assessing a sum of Rs.100/- per cent towards compensation. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the claimant got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, the claimant/land owner examined himself as P.W.1 and one Gnanasambanda Chettiar was examined as P.W.2 and exhibited documents Ex.A.1 and A.2. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one V.Mohanraj was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibits B.1 to B.4 were marked. .5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to .Rs.1,200/- per cent. .6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: .The judgment and decree of the trial Court is against law and weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. The Sub-Court was not justified in placing reliance on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 relating to the plots of land which situated far off from the land acquired and accordingly prayed for reducing the compensation awarded by the Sub court. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.100/- to Rs.1,200/-per cent of land placing reliance on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2? 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would argue that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 refer to small plots of land situated far away from the land acquired and they should not have been relied on by the Sub-Court while fixing the compensation. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader would argue that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 refer to small plots of land situated far away from the land acquired and they should not have been relied on by the Sub-Court while fixing the compensation. 9. Whereas, the land owner/claimant would argue that the Sub Court relied on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 properly and the entire viscinity got already developed, wherefore the Sub Court cannot be faulted with. .10. I have perused the judgment of the Sub Court. It appears that the Sub Court implicitly placed reliance on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 ignoring the fact that both those documents refer to land in S.No.120/1. Ex.B.4, sketch would enable this Court to visualise that the land acquired in Survey No.65 is far off from the land contemplated under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. In such a case, the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on it. The Sub Court itself referred to Item No.37 as found set out in Ex.B.1 which is prepared by the Land acquisition Officer by gathering sales particulars in the locality concerned. However, for no good reason, the Sub court simply neglected to rely on the said Item No.37; even though it refers to S.No.72 which as per Ex.B.4 is nearer to the land acquired. As per Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, actual small plots were sold, where as the said Item No.37 found in Ex.B.1, is relating to sale of 20 1/6 cents of land for a sum of Rs.17,700/- which means the rate per acre was Rs.88,500/-. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected it as according to him, the land in item 37 was far off from the land acquired. However, on analysing the fact and as per Ex.B.4 map, it is found that the land in said item No.37 is nearer to the land acquired and that could be the basis for assessing the compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the land owner/claimant would advance his argument that the purpose of acquisition is for allotting the house sites to Adi-dravidar community people and in such a case, notionally the plot value of the land has to be worked out. Item No. 37, refers to punja land. Hence he prayed for notionally increasing the value of the land as contemplated under Item No.37, taking a cue from Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. 12. Item No. 37, refers to punja land. Hence he prayed for notionally increasing the value of the land as contemplated under Item No.37, taking a cue from Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. 12. I cannot countenance such an argument for the reason that the plots in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are situated far away from the land acquired and hence such deeds cannot be relied on. Then the next question arises as to whether notional increase could be given to the land in item No.37 in Ex.B.1 so as to assess its potential plot value. It is seen that five months anterior to the Section 4(1) notification even at that time, developments started commencing in that area and therefore it cannot be stated that the value referred to in item No.37 was only agricultural land value. In this factual matrix, the normal presumption is that the said parties agreed for the sale price as found in item 37, only after taking into account, the said lands potential plot value. Hence, the question notionally enhancing its value does not arise for assessing the compensation. The purpose of the land acquisition should be taken into account for assessing the compensation. The land was acquired for allotment of house sites for Adi-dravida community people and hence for development charges, there should be deduction. Then the question arises as to what should be the quantum of deduction towards development charges. 13. My mind is redolent with the decisions of the Honble Apex Court reported in 1996 (9) SCC 640 [Basavva vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer], 2007(9)SCC 447 (NELSON FERNANDS V. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) AND AIR 2007 SCC 740 (DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MALLA ATCHINAIDU) and the decisions of this Court reported in 2006(5) CTC 173 [The Land Acquisition Officer, Coonoor vs. Pappammal] and 2006(2) CTC 733 [The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) vs. Valliammal]. 14. A mere perusal of the above judgments would highlight that necessarily while awarding enhanced compensation, treating agricultural lands as house sites, towards development charges such as roads, parks and for providing other amenities, considerable amount should be deducted. The actual rate of deduction varies from case to case depending upon the peculiar circumstances involved. In some cases, deduction to an extent of 54% was effected. In some other cases normally 1/3 deduction was given and yet in some other cases 20% deduction was treated as proper. The actual rate of deduction varies from case to case depending upon the peculiar circumstances involved. In some cases, deduction to an extent of 54% was effected. In some other cases normally 1/3 deduction was given and yet in some other cases 20% deduction was treated as proper. Learned counsel for the claimant/land owner submits that the development charges may be restricted to 20% otherwise, the land owner would not got just and proper compensation. Hence, placing reliance on the above precedents and also the available facts that already developments had taken and there are rice mills, school, road facilities etc available and that there is also nothing to show that the land requires earth filling. I am of the considered opinion that 20% could rightly be deducted towards development charges. Accordingly, the following formula emerges:- The rate of one acre of land as per item No.37 in Ex.B.1, would works out to Rs.88,500/- out of it 20% deduction towards development charges comes to Rs.17,700/- As such the net value per acre comes to Rs.70,800/-. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the just compensation awardable is only Rs.70,800/- per acre. 15. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand modified and the compensation is assessed at Rs.70,800/- per acre. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the claimant is entitled to other statutory benefits as per law.