Judgment :- This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 02.09.1994 made in LAOP No.197 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet. 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. Animadverting upon the enhanced compensation awarded by the Sub Court, the Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal. .4. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: .The Government effected publication under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 112. 1983 intending to acquire the lands measuring an extent of 2.26 acres in S.Nos.177/1 and 178/1 in North Arcot District, Arcot Taluk and Town. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.476.18 per cent. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such assessment, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. During enquiry before the trial Court, the claimant Arunachalam examined himself as CW1 and exhibits Exs.C.1 to C5 were marked. On the side of the respondent RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.476.18 per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent. .6. Challenging and impugning such enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: .Placing reliance on various documents which are relating to plot area, the Sub Court assessed the value of the agricultural land which was acquired by the Government. 7. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the enhancement awarded by the Sub Court is on the higher side which requires to be reduced. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.476.18 per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent ordered by the Sub Court is just and proper. 9. 7. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the enhancement awarded by the Sub Court is on the higher side which requires to be reduced. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the enhancement of compensation from Rs.476.18 per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent ordered by the Sub Court is just and proper. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) placing reliance on the grounds set out in the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that the there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the Sub Court in fixing the value of the land at Rs.1,500/- , whereas the learned counsel for the land owner drawing the attention of this Court to Exs.A1 to A3 would develop his argument to the effect that those exhibits are relating to the lands sold just on the other side of the road abutting the land acquired and in such a case, the compensation fixed by the Sub Court is only on the lower side and not on the higher side. It is therefore, just and proper to analyse the facts and figures, and the whole kit and caboodle of materials placed before the Sub Court. The following tabulation would enlighten the discussion of this Court. Exhibits Document Date S.No. Extent Value Rate per cent Ex.A.1 20.03.1983 257 6 cents 14,900/-2,483/- Ex.A.2 26.05.1983 257 6 cents 15,000/-2,500/- Ex.A.3 212. 1982 250 6 cents 15,000/-2,500/- 10. A mere perusal of the above tabulation would unambiguously highlight the fact that per cent of the plot area was sold in a sum of Rs.2,500/-whereas, it is also obvious that the main road, viz., Chennai - Bangalore Main Road is abutting the land acquired as well as the lands sold under Exs.A1 to A3. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on Ex.B.1 the sale deed dated 27.06.1983, which would demonstrate that an extent of 55 cents was sold in a sum of Rs.26,190/- which means per cent was valued at Rs.476. 11. The core question arises whether the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in placing reliance on Ex.B.1 neglecting the documents like Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.B.1 is relating to S.No.198 which is situated far off from the land acquired which is in S.No.177/1 and S.No.178/1, whereas Exs.A1 to A3 are relating to the lands in S.Nos.257 and 250 which are situated just on the other side of the main road. Ex.B.1 is relating to S.No.198 which is situated far off from the land acquired which is in S.No.177/1 and S.No.178/1, whereas Exs.A1 to A3 are relating to the lands in S.Nos.257 and 250 which are situated just on the other side of the main road. It is therefore crystal clear that the land acquired is having the potentiality of becoming house sites and in such a case, as per the catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court, there is no harm in placing reliance on such documents for assessing the compensation of the land acquired. 12. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honble Apex 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 precedents would spotlight the fact that in the absence of any other clinching document, even sale deeds relating to smaller extents of land can be taken as the basis for assessing larger extent of agricultural land, but there should be normal 1/3rd deduction towards development charges. As such, applying the same formula, if the case at hand is analysed, it is clear that in that vicinity where the land was acquired, per cent of land was sold in a sum of Rs.2,500/-, 1/3rd from it should be deducted towards development charges and it comes to Rs.1666/- However, the Sub Court assessed the net value only at Rs.1,500/-, which warrants no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs.