Judgment :- This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1998 made in LAOP No.2 of 1996 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipettai. 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 nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 27.09.1989 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 0.84.0 hectare in S.F.No.161/2C2 in Samathur Village, Pollachi Taluk for providing house sites to Adi Dravidas. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 13.01.1993 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.163.04 per cent. Being aggrieved by such awarding of the compensation, the land owner got the matter referred to the Sub Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. During enquiry, before the trial Court, the first claimant examined viz., Pacha Gounder himself as PW1 and Exs. C1 and C2 were marked and on the side of the respondent no one was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.163.04 per cent to Rs.400/- per cent. .5. Being dissatisfied with such awarding of enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: .The Sub Court without any objectivity simply enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.400/- per cent, which requires to be reduced. .6. The points for consideration are as to:- .Whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.163.04 per cent to Rs.400/- per cent. 7. The Learned Additional Government Pleader by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that such enhancement made by the Reference Court is on the higher side and without any basis. .8. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court would indicate that it enhanced the compensation based on the fact that the land acquired is in a developed area. However, the ratiocination adhered to by the trial court in placing reliance on the deposition of the claimant and his witness alone may not be correct. .8. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court would indicate that it enhanced the compensation based on the fact that the land acquired is in a developed area. However, the ratiocination adhered to by the trial court in placing reliance on the deposition of the claimant and his witness alone may not be correct. On the land owners side Exs.C1 and C2 were marked but both those deeds are dated 12.02.1990 and 19.08.1992 respectively, which are subsequent to the emergence of the Section 4 (1) Notification. In such a case, those documents cannot be relied on as the safe guide for assessing the compensation. On the other hand, the mere perusal of Ex.R2, the sales statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, would reveal that as many as 28 sales particulars are in it and out of which, item No.2 was selected by him as the appropriate guide for him to assess the compensation. In my opinion, the Land Acquisition Officer without any sound reason had ignored the existence of item No.9, which refers to a higher value than item No.2. 9. The learned counsel for the land owners would correctly and appropriately argue that the very fact that the land acquired is for allotting house sites for Adi Dravidas and that the area is situated admittedly in a developed vicinity, the Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have treated it as an agricultural land. The potentiality of the land capable of being converted into house plots is beyond doubt. 10. The perusal of the evidence and documents placed before the Reference Court would buttress the conclusion that the land acquired is situated in a developed vicinity. The sales statistics Ex.R2 would highlight that item Nos.9 to 26 are all relating to lands situated near to the land acquired and they were all treated as plots. I am at a loss to understand as to how the land acquisition officer should treat the land acquired alone as an agricultural land instead of treating it as the land having the potentiality of becoming house sites. As such the proper and sure guide for assessing the compensation in this case would be item No.9 and accordingly, if viewed, it is clear that one acre was valued at Rs.60,000/- which means one cent was valued at Rs.600/-. 11. As such the proper and sure guide for assessing the compensation in this case would be item No.9 and accordingly, if viewed, it is clear that one acre was valued at Rs.60,000/- which means one cent was valued at Rs.600/-. 11. My mind is redolent with the following decisions to the Honble Apex Court relating to deductions of certain amount towards development charges. .(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] 12. It is therefore clear that when compensation is assessed for an agricultural land having the potentiality of becoming house sites necessarily 1/3rd has to be deducted towards development charges from the gross value assessment. Accordingly, if viewed, the net value of each cent would come to Rs.600 - Rs.200 = Rs.400/-. Even though the trial court has not adhered to the ratiocination as adhered to by this Court, nonetheless, ultimately, the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court is correct. 13. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs.