Judgment :- The above appeals are focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 14. 1997, 212. 1997, 23. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 4. 2001, 22. 2001, 14. 1997 respectively of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore made in LAOP Nos.17, 8, 9, 21, 19, 18, 23, 12, 20 of 1993 respectively. 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. 3. The nutshell of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals would run thus: The Government published Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring : .(i) the land in Survey Nos.195/A1 and 19/5A2 measuring an total extent of 0.66 cent land in AS.No.406/1999 .(ii) the land in Survey No.19/2A measuring an extent of 0.39.0 Hectare land and the land in Survey No.19/2B measuring an extent of 0.01.5 Hectare land, totally 0.40.5 Hectare land i.e. 1.00 acre land in AS.No.68/2000 (iii) the land in Survey No.5/1 B1 measuring an extent of 0.56.5 Hectare land i.e 1.39 cent and the land in Survey No.5/2A measuring an extent of 0.27.5 Hectare land i.e. 0.68 cent in AS.No.980/2001 (iv) the land in Survey No. 17/3 measuring an extent 0.18.0 hectare ie.0.44 cent land in AS.No.1200/2001 .(v) the land in Survey No. 18/1 and 18/2 measuring an extent of 0.22.5 hectare land in AS.No.1201/2001. .(vi) the land in Survey No. 18/3 B measuring an extent of 0.36.5 hectare land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1207/2001. (vii) the land in Survey No. 17/3 A measuring an extent of 0.44 cent land i.e.0.60 cent in AS.No.1208/2001. (viii) the land in Survey No. 19/4 measuring an extent of 0.60.5 hectare land (1.50 Acre) in AS.No.237/2002 (ix) the land in Survey No.19/8 C measuring an extent of 0.15 cent and Survey No.19/8 H-1 measuring an extent of 0.30 cent and totally 0.45 cent of land in Abdullahpuram Village, Vellore for the purpose of providing housing sites for the Adi Dravidar personnel. 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 matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. 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 matter was got referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry before the Sub Court, .(i) on the side of the claimant/land owner, one Arumugam was examined as C.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-5 were marked in AS.No.406 of 1999. .(ii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner herself was examined as C.W.1 and one C.K.Murugesan was examined as C.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in AS.No.68 of 2000. (iii) on the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one S.Rajendiran and P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in AS.No.980/2001. (iv) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and C.W.3 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1200/2001. .(v) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner herself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1201/2001. .(vi) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1207/2001. .(vi) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1207/2001. (vii) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajendiran, P.Murthy were examined as C.W.2 and 3 and Exhibits A-1 to A-3 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked in A.S.1208/2001. (viii) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and one A.C.Rajasekar was examined as C.W.2 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 were marked in A.S.237/2002. (ix) On the side of the claimant/land owner, the claimant/land owner himself was examined as C.W.1 and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed. On the side of the Land Acquisition Officer, one L.Jeyakumar was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 and B-4 and B-5 were marked in A.S.1043/2003. 5. The Sub Court, ultimately enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to Rs.1000/- 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 judgments and decrees of the trial Court are against law and weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. The Reference court simply enhanced the compensation from Rs.100/- to Rs.1000/- . Without any valid reason, the data gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer for assessing the value of the land were ignored by the Reference Court. Hence, he prayed 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.100/- per cent to Rs.1,000/- per cent ? 8. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would reiterate the grounds of appeal and advance his argument to the effect that the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.100/- per cent to Rs.1,000/- per cent ? 8. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would reiterate the grounds of appeal and advance his argument to the effect that the trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Court. 9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owners/claimants by placing reliance on Exhibits A-1 viz., Sale deed dated 8. 1988 and Ex.A.2 dated 15. 1988 relied on by the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation, would develop his argument to the effect that those documents emerged a few months anterior to Section 4(1) notification and in such a case, the trial court was right in assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,000 per cent. 10. In this factual matrix, it has to be seen as to whether the lower court was justified in relying on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 ignoring Ex.B.1, the sale deed dated 210. 1985, which was relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.B.1, which emerged on 210. 1985 was relating to the sale of 2 ½ cents of land in R.S.No.13/1 in the Abdullahpuram village for a sum of Rs.25,000/- which means that each cent of the agricultural land was sold for a sum of Rs.100/-. It is obvious that Section 4(1) notification was passed in the year 1988. It is therefore clear that Ex.B.1 cannot be taken as one reflecting the true market value of the land acquired during the year 1988 for carving out plots and allotting the same in favour of Adi-dravida community people. However, only a few months anterior to the publication of Section 4(1) notification Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 emerged which reflected the market value of the land which prevailed during the year 1988 in the vicinity where the lands were acquired by the Government. Ex.A.1 dated 8. 1988 is relating to an extent of 28 ½ cents of land in Survey No.13/2 in that village and the sale consideration contemplate therein was Rs.7,790/- which means that per cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.975.87/-. Ex.A.2 is the sale deed dated 15. Ex.A.1 dated 8. 1988 is relating to an extent of 28 ½ cents of land in Survey No.13/2 in that village and the sale consideration contemplate therein was Rs.7,790/- which means that per cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.975.87/-. Ex.A.2 is the sale deed dated 15. 1988 relating to R.S.No.18/3 admeasuring 30 cents of land which was sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which connotes that per cent of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1000/-. It is therefore crystal clear that those two sale deeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 relied on by the Reference Court are reflecting the true market value of the land acquired. There is nothing to indicate that those two sale deeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were brought up purely for boosting up the market value. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court reported in .(1) 1996(9) SCC 640 [Basavva vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer], .(2) 2007(9)SCC 447 (NELSON FERNANDS V. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) AND .(3) AIR 2007 SCC 740 (DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MALLA ATCHINAIDU)and the decisions of this Court reported in .(4) 2006(5) CTC 173 [The Land Acquisition Officer, Coonoor vs. Pappammal] and 2006 .(2) CTC 733 [The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) vs. Valliammal]. 11. A mere perusal of those precedents would highlight the fact that simply because a sale deed emerged a few months anterior to Section 4(1) notification, it need not be looked askance at. 12. The whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures placed before the Reference Court would exemplify and demonstrate that the land acquired is in the vicinity where there are industrial units, T.V.S. Factory with quarters, I.T.units in addition to Air port situated within a short distance. It is therefore clear that the said area had the potentiality of becoming highly developed area in the near future and the agricultural lands are having the potentiality of being converted into industrial sites and house sites. Keeping the entire background in mind, if Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are analysed, it is clear that those sale deeds reflected the true market value prevailing in that area. 13. However one significant fact was lost sight of by the Reference Court as it failed to deduct some amount from the market value towards development charges. 14. Keeping the entire background in mind, if Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are analysed, it is clear that those sale deeds reflected the true market value prevailing in that area. 13. However one significant fact was lost sight of by the Reference Court as it failed to deduct some amount from the market value towards development charges. 14. The learned counsel for the land owners/claimants would advance his argument to the effect that no deduction need be made towards development charges for the reason that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 do contemplate agricultural lands, as the subject matter of sales. It is also his argument that if a sale of small plot of land is chosen as the sample one and the land acquired is an agricultural land, in that event, there should be deduction towards development charges. In this context, I recollect the recent two decisions of the Honble Apex Court which I would like to cite as under:- (1) Tenneti Kamesam vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 371 (SC) and excerpt from it would run thus: "5. In the impugned order itself, it has been mentioned that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the land in question was situated in a well-developed town surrounded by several structures, residential buildings and other commercial establishments, apart from being located near a railway station and other facilities. It is, therefore, evidence that the land was already situated in a developed area and the question of deduction of development charges did no, therefore, arise". No doubt, a perusal of the aforesaid judgment and more specifically, the extracted excerpt supra would reveal that there need not be any deduction towards development charges if the very land itself is a developed land. But here, it is exfacie and prima facie clear that the lands acquired are constituting a vast tract of agricultural land. For the purpose of carving out house sites, obviously, roads, drainage facilities, park facilities including other incidental facilities should be provided for the occupants of the locality and in such a case, deduction should necessarily be made towards development charges. 15. At this juncture, I would recollect the following decision, viz., The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition Vs. Mala Atchinaidu and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 740 . An excerpt from it would run thus "3. 15. At this juncture, I would recollect the following decision, viz., The Deputy Director, Land Acquisition Vs. Mala Atchinaidu and Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 740 . An excerpt from it would run thus "3. The facts herein are that, on 07.03.1982, an extent of Ac.19.87 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.3/1 to 3/42 of Pisinikada Village, in the outskirts of Anakapalli Town, was acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the provision of house sites for the weaker sections. Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and a draft declaration under Section 6 (1) was also published simultaneously on the same date. 67. The land acquired being in an already developed area, having potential of construction of residential and commercial buildings, nor more than 20% ought to have been deducted towards development, as held by this Court in Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (supra). Therefore, the deduction of 35% towards development is not justified." In the above cited case, the land acquired was for providing house sites to the weaker sections and hence the Honble Apex Court reduced the development charges from Rs.35 per cent to Rs.20 per cent on the ground that the land acquired was in a developed area. 16. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were relating to lands admeasuring 28 and 30 cents respectively. But the Government in the said village viz., Abdullahpuram acquired a vast tract of land for the purpose of allotting the house sites with facilities and in such a case atleast 20% should be deducted from the market value of Rs.1000/-per cent arrived at by the Reference Court. 17. This Court is fully aware of the fact that towards potentiality of the land, some compensation should be awarded by increasing some amount over and above the amount contemplated in sale deed like Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 and thereafter deducting at least 1/3 out of it. However, I am of the opinion that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 emerged a few months before Section 4(1) notification and in such a case, it is inferable that the sellers and purchasers under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 might have foreseen the potential value of those agricultural lands and agreed for such sale prices contemplated therein. However, I am of the opinion that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 emerged a few months before Section 4(1) notification and in such a case, it is inferable that the sellers and purchasers under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 might have foreseen the potential value of those agricultural lands and agreed for such sale prices contemplated therein. Inasmuch as the privateers were the purchasers under those sale deeds and that too smaller extents of agricultural land were involved therein, the court cannot simply award the entire rate of Rs.1000 per cent without any deduction relating to the vast extent of land acquired by the Government in that village for providing house sites and facilities to the Adi-dravida community people. Hence, by way of striking a balance between the two, without increasing any amount over and above Rs.1000 per cent towards potential plot value and thereafter deducting 1/3 out of it, straight away 20% deduction can be effected from out of Rs.1000 per cent, which comes to Rs.800 per cent. 18. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the net value per cent shall be fixed at Rs.800/- and that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits as per law. 19. The judgments and decrees of the Reference Court shall stand modified and the appeals are disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount if not already deposited by the Government, the same shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.