Judgment :- This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 211. 1994 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai in LAOP No.26 of 1993. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. .3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: .The Government published Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land measuring an extent of 3.00 acres in S.Nos.27/1B and 27/3 in Kilanaikarai Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, North Arcot District for the purpose of providing housing sites to the Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.9,524/-per acre (Rs.95.24 per cent). Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the Land Owners got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, C.W.1 was examined and no document was marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.95.24 per cent to Rs.1,500/- 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: .Without any basis, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation. Absolutely no document was relied on by the Sub Court for awarding such enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.95.24/-per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent. .8. Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would draw the attention of this Court that the land owners before the Sub Court did not produce any evidence so as to highlight as to how they were entitled to get enhanced compensation. .8. Learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would draw the attention of this Court that the land owners before the Sub Court did not produce any evidence so as to highlight as to how they were entitled to get enhanced compensation. The Sub Court did not advert itself to the law applicable relating to assessment of compensation in land acquisition matters whereas, the learned counsel for the land owners while admitting that before the Sub Court no document was produced on the side of the land owners to prove their claim for enhanced compensation, nonetheless the sales statistics as contained in Ex.B.1 itself would demonstrate that the land owner is entitled for enhanced compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the land owners drew the attention of this Court to item 59 in Ex.B.1 and it is extracted hereunder: "59; 1225; 469/307; 20-4/87; 22/1A; g[d;bra;; 8.4; 8; 0.12; 2.68; 1,20,000; 44716. ........ " However, it is relating to Survey No.22/1A which is far away from the land acquired, whereas, item 42 is nearer to the land acquired. There is also one other impediment for placing reliance on item 59 for the reason that the land contemplated therein is meant for being developed as house sites, presumably by Real Estate Agent. Hence, such an item was not relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer and this Court also cannot rely upon it. 10. He would also draw the attention of this Court to item No.43 in Ex.B.1, which was relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for arriving at the compensation of Rs.95.24 and advance his argument correctly that such approach was totally wrong for the reason that the nearby item 42 in Ex.B.1 would highlight that per square foot of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1/- as on 22.02.1987, almost an year anterior to the passing of Section 4(1) notification. 11. A perusal of item 42 in Ex.B.1 would enable us to gather the following particulars: "650; 465/95; 4-3/87; 26/22; g[d;bra; 8.4; 8; 0.13; 2.10; 20000; 9524" 12. However, the Land Acquisition Officer simply ignored it on the sole ground that it was relating to house site. 11. A perusal of item 42 in Ex.B.1 would enable us to gather the following particulars: "650; 465/95; 4-3/87; 26/22; g[d;bra; 8.4; 8; 0.13; 2.10; 20000; 9524" 12. However, the Land Acquisition Officer simply ignored it on the sole ground that it was relating to house site. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court: "(1) AIR (2007) Supreme Court 740 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu] .(2) (2003) 4 SCC 481 [Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India] .(3) (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others] .(4) (2008) 1 SCC 554 [Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others] .(5) (1996) 9 SCC 640 [Basavva (smt) and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others]." 13. A perusal of those judgments would clearly indicate that in the absence of any other clinching document, even sale deeds relating to smaller extent of plot area can be taken as the base for assessing larger extent of agricultural land, provided necessary deductions are effected. It is crystal clear that item 42 refers to S.No.27/2 which is nearer to the land acquired and it emerged almost 10-1/2 months anterior to Section 4 (1) notification. No doubt, it refers to house site. It also clearly shows that the land acquired is having the potentiality of becoming house sites. Hence, applying the standard as laid by the Honble Apex Court, per square feet of land can be taken as Rs.1/- relating to the land acquired also. However, 1/3rd deduction should be made. The purpose of land acquisition was to provide house sites to the Adi Dravidar community people. Those decisions cited supra would also highlight that 1/3rd from the market value should be deducted towards development charges. Accordingly, if viewed, the following formula emerges: Market value per cent at the rate of Rupee one per sq.foot - Rs.436.00 1/3 rd deduction towards development charges - Rs.145.33 Net value Rs.290.67 per cent 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court shall stand modified to the effect that per cent of land should be assessed in a sum of Rs.290.67. Accordingly compensation should be worked out. The land owners are entitled to other benefits as contemplated as per law. 15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court shall stand modified to the effect that per cent of land should be assessed in a sum of Rs.290.67. Accordingly compensation should be worked out. The land owners are entitled to other benefits as contemplated as per law. 15. Learned Special Government Pleader would make an extemporary submission to the effect that earlier this Court passed an order of stay in C.M.P.No.10220 of 2001 in A.S.No.1282 of 1995 dated 13.07.2001 as under: "C.M.P.10220 of 2001 has been filed for withdrawal of the amounts deposited to the credit of LAOP No.26/93. The petitioners herein are the L.Rs. of the 1st respondent having been brought on record by orders in CMP 9731 of 2001 and they pray for withdrawal. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw 25% of the amount deposited together with interest without furnishing security and 25% upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court below and the balance of 50% shall be invested in a Nationalized Bank for three years in Fixed Deposit." 16. He would further develop his argument that in view of the order passed supra, whatever amount is due in the deposit over and above the amount required to satisfy the claim of the claimant, as per this order, the remaining shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Government. Such a submission is acceptable and accordingly it is ordered. With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.