Judgment : G. Rajasuria, J. 1. This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 38. 1984, in L.A.O.P.No.67 of 1988 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trail Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 8. 1983 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 0.54 cents of land in R.S.No.286/1 in Kuttalam Village, Mayiladuthurai of the appellant out of his total holdings of 76 cents of land for the purpose of setting up telephone exchange. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 4. 1988 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.112.50 per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the Sub Court, the claimants Ramalingam and Vembu examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked. On the side of the respondent the land Acquisition Officer one L. Paramasivam examined himself as R.W.1 and no document was marked. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.112.50 per cent to Rs.800/- per cent. 5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement the authority concerned has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: The Sub Court without an objective basis simply enhanced the compensation, which is required to be reduced. 6. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader (AS) is to the effect that instead of applying the 1/3rd deduction formula towards development charges, 20% alone was deducted. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.112.50 per cent to Rs.800/- per cent and that too, without deducting 1/3 to from the market value towards development charges. 8. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.112.50 per cent to Rs.800/- per cent and that too, without deducting 1/3 to from the market value towards development charges. 8. Learned Additional Government Pleader made his submission reiterating the grounds of appeal whereas the learned counsel for the land owner would submit that the Sub Court correctly applied the law and fixed the compensation by enhancing it from Rs.112.50 to Rs.800/- per cent and 20% deduction given is found to be correct for the reason that here severance of 54 cents of land from the total extent of 76 cents was involved and thereby the land owner was incapacitated from making use of his remaining 22 cents of land to his utmost benefit. Obviously, the value of the land also was dwindled because that 22 cents is at the back of the land acquired by the Government, which is far off from the road. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 1417 . The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “…. A smaller area such as this on a main road would certainly fetch a higher price compared to a larger undeveloped area even though it may have a frontage on the main road. In order to develop that area at least the value of 1/3 of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenities. On this basis, the value of the land at Rs.2,08,,135.70 per acre would after deduction of 1/3 come to Rs.1,38,757/- per acre. On the basis of the rental of Rupees 175/- p.m. in Exhibit 10, the value at 20 times the rental will work out as already seen at Rs.1,26,000/-. Allowing for an increase in rents from 1950 to 1954, the date of Section 4 Notification, say at 5% the value per acre may be Rupees 1,33,000/- or thereabout. If we take the average of Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11 as computed by us the value per acre would come to about Rupees 1,35,878/-. In our view, Rs.1,35,000/- per acre would he a reasonable rate at which compensation could be awarded to the claimants. If we take the average of Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11 as computed by us the value per acre would come to about Rupees 1,35,878/-. In our view, Rs.1,35,000/- per acre would he a reasonable rate at which compensation could be awarded to the claimants. The High Court was not justified in giving 10% towards potential value because that element is inherent in the fixation of the market value of the land and could not be assessed separately. The High Court was also not justified in disallowing 5% awarded by the Judicial Commissioner, Chhotanagpur as compensation for severance merely because there was an entrance to the land. When a portion of the land is acquired and a large portion left out there would be a diminution in the value of the land that is left out for which some compensation has to be allowed. The 5% allowed by the Judicial Commissioner, Chhotanagpur is reasonable. In this view, the claimants would be entitled to a decree as follows in respect of the lands acquired: .(1) At the rate of Rupees 1,35,000/- per acre for 4.65 acres; .(2) 5% severance and 15% solatium on the market value computed as in (1); .(3) Interest at 6% from the date of taking possession”. 9. Learned counsel for the land owner would draw the attention of this Court to para No.4 of the judgment of the Sub Court and advance his arguments that the lower Court correctly considered the diminished value of the remaining left out portion of 22 cents and accordingly deducted only 20% from the market value of the property towards development charges. 10. At this juncture, my mind is redo lent with the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court: .(i) Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahoti AIR 2008 SC 399 : (2008) 1 SCC 554 : (2008) 1 MLJ 1038. .(ii) Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2007 SC 1414 : (2007) 9 SCC 447 : (2007) 3 MLJ 751. (iii) Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu AIR 2007 SC 740 and as well as by this Court passed in (iv) A.S.No.852 of 1996 dated 211. 2007 Special Tahsildar, BHEL Unit, Ranipet v. Amirthammal and 3 others. A perusal of those judgments would clearly highlight that the normal rule is to deduct 1/3rd towards development charges. (iii) Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu AIR 2007 SC 740 and as well as by this Court passed in (iv) A.S.No.852 of 1996 dated 211. 2007 Special Tahsildar, BHEL Unit, Ranipet v. Amirthammal and 3 others. A perusal of those judgments would clearly highlight that the normal rule is to deduct 1/3rd towards development charges. However, those decisions also would indicate and highlight that in appropriate cases, it could be reduced further. A perusal of the judgment of the Sub Court coupled with the precedent cited by the learned counsel for the land owner, would make it clear that relating to severance of an extent from the holdings of the land owner some amount of damages by way of compensation should be awarded. The relevant portion of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is extracted here under for ready reference. “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation – (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration - first ………. secondly ……… “……….thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land by reason of severing such land from his other land;” (emphasis supplied) A mere perusal of the aforesaid provision of law also would indicate that, whenever there is severance of the land acquired from the total holdings of the land owner, some amount of compensation could be awarded on that count, if any damage has been proved to have been sustained by the land owner. 11. Here, in this case, indubitably and admittedly, the left out land, measuring an extent of 22 cents is situated at the rear portion of the 54 cents of land acquired by the Government and naturally it is away from the road abutting the entire holdings. In the decision cited supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with a similar situation and held that under that count towards severance compensation, 5% would be proper. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that from the normal rule of deducting 1/3rd, i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges, 5% towards severance compensation could be deducted and that would come to 33 1/3-5 = 27 2/3%. 12. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that from the normal rule of deducting 1/3rd, i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges, 5% towards severance compensation could be deducted and that would come to 33 1/3-5 = 27 2/3%. 12. Relating to the other aspect of the mailer, the Sub Court relied on Exhibits A-3, A-4 and A-5, which emerged anterior to Section 4(1) Notification for arriving at the market value from 112.50 per cent to Rs.800/- per cent. It is apparent from a bare perusal of them that the lands referred to are found situated in the same vicinity. The Sub Court, therefore, correctly relied upon those documents, which warranted no interference. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Market value per cent Rs.800. per cent 1/3rd deduction towards development charges Rs.266.67 5% deducted from development charges considering the fact that land owner is entitled to severance compensation Rs.40.00 Rs.306.67 Net value Rs.493.33 per cent The judgment of the Sub Court shall stand modified as above. In other aspects, the Sub Court’s judgment and decree shall hold good. 13. With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.