JUDGMENT G. RAJASURIA, J. 1. This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1992 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharapuranr in L.A.O.P. No. 20 of 1989. The Cross Objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 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 nut-shell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal and Cross Objections would run thus: The Government published the Notification dated 4.9.1983 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands in T.S. No. 59/1 B bearing an extent of 36598 sq.ft in Nanchiampalayam Village belonging to Sivanandammal and under the same Notification, the land in T.S. No. 64/1A2 bearing an extent of 31204 sq.ft in the same village belonging to Kajamoideen also was sought to be acquired. The purpose of land acquisition was to widen the existing road for the convenience of the public. After complying with the formalities as contemplated under law, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and took possession of the same. According to him, the compensation was worked out to Rs. 3,279/- per acre. 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, which Court ultimately enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 per sq.ft. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the claimants examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exhibits C.W.1 to 6 were marked. On the side of the respondent D.W.1, the land acquisition officer was examined and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 were marked. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Government has 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 as the enhancement awarded is not based on objective criteria. 6. The Sub Court erroneously placed reliance on Exhibit C-1, the sale deed dated 31.3.1992, which is relating to the approved lay out whereas the land acquired is only punja land situated abutting the existing road. 6. The Sub Court erroneously placed reliance on Exhibit C-1, the sale deed dated 31.3.1992, which is relating to the approved lay out whereas the land acquired is only punja land situated abutting the existing road. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 7. The land owners filed separate Cross Objections praying for enhancement of the award passed by the Sub Court on the ground that the land acquired is having a potentiality of becoming plots and that the value of the plots are on the escalation. 8. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court awarded a just and proper compensation? 9. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would reiterate the grounds as found set out in the grounds of appeal and contend that Exhibit C-1, does not reflect the true market value of the land acquired. Whereas the learned counsel for the claimants would convincingly and correctly highlight that D.W.1, the land acquisition officer himself during cross examination candidly and categorically has admitted that the data sales particulars, which he collected are pertaining to lands situated 3 kms away from the land acquired; the land acquired is in Dharapuram Municipality whereas the data lands are situated in a village, which is 3 kms away from the land acquired and hence, the Sub Court was justified in enhancing it. However, the trial Court as per the claimants, should have enhanced it, but more than Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. 10. In the wake of the rival submissions, it is just and necessary to analyse Exhibit C-1 upon which, the lower Court placed reliance in enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. D.W.1 himself, in his cross-examination would admit that Exhibit C-1 is relating to the land situated adjacent to the land acquired. 11. A perusal of Exhibit C-1 would indicate that it is pertaining to the approved plots in the municipal area adjacent to the land acquired and that too, it emerged on 31.3.1982 whereas Section 4(1) Notification was published on 4.9.1983. Hence, in such a case, Exhibit C-1 cannot be a cooked up one purely for the purpose of boosting up the value of the land. The Sub Court was justified in placing reliance on such a document. 12. Hence, in such a case, Exhibit C-1 cannot be a cooked up one purely for the purpose of boosting up the value of the land. The Sub Court was justified in placing reliance on such a document. 12. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the Land Acquisition Officer’s assessment of the compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,279/- per acre should be accepted, is neither here nor there and it is quite obvious that the land acquired is in municipal area whereas the data lands are situated in village area, 3 kms away from it. Hence, the contention on the side of the Government cannot be accepted. 13. Now the question arises as to whether any further enhancement could be ordered over and above what is contemplated in Exhibit C-1. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others (2008) 1 SCC 554 : (2008) 1 MLJ 1038. An excerpt from it would run thus at p. 1043 of MLJ: “21. The deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any straitjacket formula. It would depend upon the facts of each case. 22. …….. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.” (emphasis supplied) The excerpt referred to supra would torpedo the contention of the claimants for further enhancement. Simply because, the adjacent land was developed into plots, the lands acquired also should not be treated on par with that. Hence, in this view of the matter, further enhancement of the award amount, cannot be granted. 14. A mere perusal of the judgment of the Sub Court would reveal that no deduction was effected towards development charges. Simply because, the adjacent land was developed into plots, the lands acquired also should not be treated on par with that. Hence, in this view of the matter, further enhancement of the award amount, cannot be granted. 14. A mere perusal of the judgment of the Sub Court would reveal that no deduction was effected towards development charges. The learned counsel for the claimants would try to argue that since the land acquired is for extending the road, the question of deduction towards development charges would not arise. I cannot countenance such an argument in view of the one other decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2007 SC 1414 : (2007) 9 SCC 447 : (2007) 3 MLJ 751. An excerpt from it would run thus at p. 761 of MLJ: “30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu had noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes, deduction by way of development charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station, water supply, electricity, highway, transport, post, petrol pump, industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs. 250/- per sq m with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest, etc. etc. The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.” The above excerpt would clearly demonstrate that even though the land acquired was for widening of the road, nonetheless deduction towards development charges should be effected. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.” The above excerpt would clearly demonstrate that even though the land acquired was for widening of the road, nonetheless deduction towards development charges should be effected. The question is as to what should be the quantum of deduction? 15. The following precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court could also fruitfully be cited. “Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu AIR 2007 SC 740 .” “A mere perusal of those judgments would reveal that the normal rule is to deduct 1/3rd of the market value towards development charges, however, in view of the fact that the land acquired is for widening of the road, 20% deduction towards development charges would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is worked out as follows: Rate per sq.ft. Rs. 4.71 20% deduction 0.94 Net value 3.77” 16. Accordingly, the award passed by the Sub Court is modified to that effect. 17. The learned counsel for the land owners placing reliance on Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, would appropriately and correctly highlight the fact that 9% interest should have been awarded by the Sub Court on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession till one year and thereafter, 15% interest till the date of deposit. 18. A mere reading of Section 28 of the Act would buttress and fortify the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants. Accordingly, I would further direct that relating to the enhanced compensation as ordered by this Court now, 9% interest is payable from the date of taking possession, by the Government for one year and thereafter 15% interest, till the date deposit. If the Government had not already adhered to Section 28, the same shall be adhered to. In other words, the Government, if not already paid the excess amount with appropriate interest as contemplated above in this order, the same shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed and the cross objections are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed and cross appeal dismissed.