Judgment :- This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 27. 1993, in LAOP No.61 of 1989 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 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 would run thus: The Government vide Notification dated 212. 1987 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 0.24 cents in Survey No.190/7B2; an extent of 49 cents in Survey No.190/7A, totalling to an extent of 2.94 acres in Kilvanakkambadi Village, Chengam Taluk for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravida community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 20.5.1989 assessing the compensation in a sum of Re.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 trial Court the claimants examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Palani was examined as P.W.4 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked. On the side of the respondent, the land Acquisition Officer one P.K.Subramanian was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Re.95.24/- per cent to Rs.450/- per cent. .5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: .The reference Court, namely, the Sub Court ignoring the data of sales particulars furnished by the Land Acquisition Officer simply relying upon the documents produced by the Land Owners enhanced the compensation, which requires to be reduced. 6. 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.450/- per cent? .7. The learned Government Advocate, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument that the reference Court was not justified in ignoring the sales particulars and more particularly the very sale executed by Srinivasan, one of the claimants, for lesser amount. 8. .7. The learned Government Advocate, placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument that the reference Court was not justified in ignoring the sales particulars and more particularly the very sale executed by Srinivasan, one of the claimants, for lesser amount. 8. The learned counsel for the land owners would submit that the sub Court correctly placed reliance on Ex.A1-sale deed dated 6. 1989 and assessed the compensation. 9. No doubt, Ex.B3-the sale deed dated 22. 1985 executed by Srinivasan, one of the land owners herein, sold a part of his land to an extent of 10 ½ cents for a sum of Rs.95.24/- per cent. However, the Land Acquisition Officer had not taken into account the potential value of the land. It is an admitted fact that the purpose of acquisition itself is for providing house sites to landless Adi Dradiva community people. In such a case, the potentiality of the land acquired should necessarily be taken into consideration. 10. Ex.A1 is dated 210. 1983, which is situated very near to the land acquired in Survey No.190/9. Even in the year 1983, so as to say nearly 5 years anterior to the Section 4(1) Notification that area was having the potentiality of becoming plots. But this fact was not taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer. Ex.A2 is not relevant to this case for the reason that it is a sale Deed dated 6. 1989, which emerged long after the publication of Section 4(1) Notification. But, the lower Court wrongly noted as though it emerged on 6. 1987. 11. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to indicate that Ex.A1 is a cooked up document brought up purely for the purpose of boosting up the value of the land. One of the land owners, namely, Srinivasan, during the year 1985, might have sold the land owing to circumstances, which might have compelled him to sell away for a lesser price, but that does not mean that he should be pinned down by citing his own document. The Court, while assessing compensation, should take into account the potentiality, as already highlighted supra. .12. Here Ex.A1 has been correctly relied on by the sub Court. However, detailed reasons have not been given about the deduction. The Court, while assessing compensation, should take into account the potentiality, as already highlighted supra. .12. Here Ex.A1 has been correctly relied on by the sub Court. However, detailed reasons have not been given about the deduction. But a deep analysis of Ex.A1 for that of the compensation awarded by the Sub Court, would clearly show that the Sub Court also took into account the relevant deduction towards development charges. In fact, according to Ex.A1, an extent of 1,320 sq.ft. of land was sold for a sum of Rs.2,112/-, which means one sq.ft was sold for a sum of Rs.1.60 and as such one cent would come to Rs.698/- (Rs.1.60 X 436.36). Out of which, after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges, the net value comes to Rs.465/- per cent but the reference Court awarded only Rs.450/- per cent. 13. In the result, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, passed in LAOP No.61 of 1989 dated 29.07.1993, warrants no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.