Judgment :- This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 112. 1996 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu in LAOP No.2 of 1996. 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 effected publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the lands measuring an extent of 2.23 acres in S.No.54/1 in Singaperumalkoil Village, Chengalpattu Taluk for the purpose of providing land to Adi Dravidar community people. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.300/-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 Sub Court, on the side of the claimant, C.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 5. Ultimately, the Sub Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.300/- to Rs.2,250/-per cent. .6. Being dissatisfied with such enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: .The Sub Court simply enhanced the compensation upto Rs.2,250/-per cent without any objective basis. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for reducing the compensation. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.300/- to Rs.2,250/- per cent. .8. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation, the appellant filed the appeal on various grounds, the warp and woof of them is that objectivity was lacking and that the principles governing fixation of compensation have not been adhered to by the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation and accordingly reiterating those points, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted his argument. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owner would submit that they have out of oversight not filed cross appeal for enhancement, as the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is moderate and not excessive by any standard. 9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the land owner would submit that they have out of oversight not filed cross appeal for enhancement, as the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is moderate and not excessive by any standard. 9. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court would reveal that the Court placed reliance on Ex.A3 - the Sale Deed dated 08.02.1988, whereas it has not considered Ex.A1 dated 26.02.1990 on the ground that the sale deeed is relating to a land and a house. I am of the considered opinion that the Reference Court was justified in not taking into consideration Ex.A1, because there is no separate valuation of the land found set out therein, but the land with house alone was contemplated therein. However, Ex.A3 dated 08.02.1988 emerged almost three years anterior to Section 4(1) Notification, which was published on 13.03.1991. Ex.A2 is relating to a plot area of seven cents. Eventhough the total exact extent comes to 3382.25 sq.ft., in the sale deed it is specified as roughly seven cents and accordingly it was sold for a sum of Rs.15,260/-. The Land Acquisition Officer should have taken into consideration the sale deed and assessed the compensation, but for no good reason, he neglected it. Hence the Reference Court was right in placing reliance on Ex.A3. However, for the gap of three years between the emergence of Ex.A3 and the publication of Section 4(1) Notification, the Reference Court granted per year 15% increase which is not supported by any precedent of the Honble Apex Court. Whereas, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 533 [Delhi Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma and others] would be to the effect that for each year, 10% increase could be given. An excerpt from it would run thus: "6. The lands which are the subject-matter of these appeals are acquired for the same purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 22. 1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 111. 1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of prices in regard to these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5% increase in the market value in respect of the lands in these appeals. 1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 111. 1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of prices in regard to these lands. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 5% increase in the market value in respect of the lands in these appeals. In the result these appeals are also allowed and the impugned judgments are modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,55 per bigha + 5% escalation. The respondents are entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs. Civil Appeal No.4157 of 2003 7. The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal is acquired for the purpose as in the aforementioned appeals, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 211. 1981 i.e. subsequent to Section 4(1) notification dated 111. 1980. Obviously, there would be escalation of price in regard to this land. Hence, we think it just and appropriate to give 10% increase in the market value in respect of the land in this appeal. In the result this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to Rs.3,45,000 per bigha) to Rs.76,550 per bigha + 10% escalation. The respondent is entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act based on the amount of compensation as modified above. No costs." 10. Accordingly if viewed, I am of the opinion that 10% increase for each year, for three years could be notionally given for the purpose of assessment. However, the Sub Court once again committed error in deducting only 1/4th towards development charges instead of 1/3rd. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court: .(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] 11. A mere perusal of those decisions would highlight and spotlight that atleast there should be 1/3rd deduction. 12. A mere perusal of those decisions would highlight and spotlight that atleast there should be 1/3rd deduction. 12. Here the pertinent point to be taken into consideration is that an extent of 2.23 acres of land has been acquired for carving out plots being allotted to landless Adi Dravidar community people and in such a case, it is crystal clear that necessarily atleast 1/3rd of the land should be sacrificed for roads and for other facilities such as drainage facilities, park facilities etc., and without such developments, plots cannot be carved out in that large extent of 2.23 acres. 13. The learned counsel for the land owner would submit that the land acquired is in a fast developing area and the same is found reflected in the judgment of the Reference Court. There is no quarrel over the fact that the land acquired was in a developing area. The point to be noted here is that the area acquired being situated in a developing vicinity is different from the area itself being a developed one. It is obvious here that the land acquired itself is not a developed one, even though it is situated in a developing vicinity. Hence I am of the opinion that in consonance with the decision of the Honble Apex Court, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the value assessed above. Accordingly, the following formula emerges: 7 cents of land : Rs.15,260/- Per cent of land : Rs.15,260/7 = Rs.2180/- 10% increase for each year and for three years: Rs.2901.58 1/3rd deduction towards development charges: Rs. 967.20 2/3rd : Rs.1934.38 Net value (rounded): Rs.1935/- per cent 14. In the result, the net compensation awardable per cent of land comes to Rs.1935/-(one thousand nine hundred and thirty five only). I make it clear that the land owner is eligible for other statutory benefits. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Sub Court stand modified and the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.