Judgment :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment in LAOP.No.92 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge / Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ranipet, Vellore. 2. The Government has acquired 0.39.0 hectares of land in S.Nos.99/3, 99/4, 99/7, 99/10, 98/1, 98/5, 95/4A & 99/2 for the purpose providing house sites to the landless people belonging Adi-Dravida community of Aanaimallur village. 3. After following the formalities the Land Acquisition Officer has published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 112. 1989. As per Ex.R.3 data land dated 4. 1988 under which 2 acres 11 cents of Nanja land was sold for Rs.26,375/- in S.Nos.9/1, 23/3, 25/5, 75/3 and 25/5 in Aanaimallur Village, the land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation. But a perusal of Ex.R.3 will go to show that it is not a registration copy, but is it is only a certified copy of the Tahsildar. On the basis of Ex.R.3, Land Acquisition Officer has passed an Award No.4/92-93 dated 14. 1992 fixing the compensation for the land acquired at Rs.96/56 per cent. Not satisfied with the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed his objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, who in turn had referred the same under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant had examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.C.1 – sale deed dated 10. 1988 executed by one Sarangapani Ammal in favaour of Krishnaveni Ammal. On the side of the Referring Officer, Special Deputy Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked. 5. After meticulously considering the evidence both oral and documentary and after giving due consideration to the submissions made by the Government Advocate and also the learned counsel for the claimant, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has allowed the appeal thereby enhanced the compensation from Rs.96/56 per cent to Rs.500/- per cent with usual interest, solatium, interest on solatium etc., which necessitated the Government to prefer this appeal. 6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent and considered their respective submissions. 7. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C.1 – sale deed dated 10. 6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent and considered their respective submissions. 7. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.C.1 – sale deed dated 10. 1988 under which 5 3/5 cents out of 22 cents in S.No.98/3 in Aanaimallur Village was sold for Rs.8,750/-, enhanced and fixed the compensation as Rs.500/-per cent from Rs.96/56 per cent fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the absence of any registration copy for the sale deed for Ex.R.3, the Award of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be upheld. Further, 4(1) notification was dated 112. 1989, Ex.C.1 is dated 10. 1988, i.e., one year two months prior to 4(1) notification, but the nature of the land sold under Ex.C.1 and the land acquired by the Government are similar in all aspects. 8. But the learned Special Government Pleader would focus the attention of this Court to the judgment of this in A.S.No.713 of 2001, which has been preferred against the judgment in LAOP.No.93 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge / Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ranipet dated 30.11.2000, wherein 20% deduction has been given by this Court towards development charges. A perusal of the said judgment in A.S.No.713 of 2001 will also go to show that the government had acquired 0.04.0 hectare in S.No.95/4B, 0.01.0 hectare in S.No.99/2, 0.03.5 hectare in S.No.99/9, 0.06.5 hectare in S.No.98/3B, 0.02.5 hectare in S.No.98/4 and 0.13.5 hectare in S.No.98/6 totaling an extent of 0.75 acres in the same village Aanaimallur village, Arcot Taluk, for the purpose of providing house sites for the people belonging to Adi-Dravidar community. In that case also Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation as Rs.96/56 per cent. Against that, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, which had enhanced the compensation from Rs.96/56 per cent to Rs.500/- per cent. In the said case, this Court relying on (i) AIR 2007 SC 740 (Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu), (ii) (2003) 4 SCC 481 (Ravinder Narain and another Vs. Union of India) (iii) (2007)9 SCC 447 (Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others), (iv) (2008)1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others), (v) (1996)9 SCC 640 (Basavva (smt) and others Vs. Union of India) (iii) (2007)9 SCC 447 (Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others), (iv) (2008)1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others), (v) (1996)9 SCC 640 (Basavva (smt) and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others), after giving 20% deduction towards development charges, has reduced and fixed the compensation as Rs.400/- per cent. Admittedly no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment in A.S.No.713 of 2001 so far. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that in the case on hand also 20% deduction is to be made towards development charges and the compensation is to be reduced and fixed as Rs.400/- per cent. 9. In fine, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.92 of 1994 is reduced from Rs.500/- per cent to Rs.400/- per cent after giving 20% deduction towards development charges. The claimant is entitled to solatium, interest on solatium and additional compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the above said award amount of Rs.400/-per cent. No costs.