Judgment : This Appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 21. 1993 passed in L.A.O.P. No. 14 of 1990 on the file of 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. A ‘resume’ of facts that are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal would run thus: The Government vide the Notification dated 12. 1985 made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, intended to acquire the land measuring an extent of 20492 sq.ft. in Survey No. 457/1B in Thirumalai Village, Polur Taluk. After complying with the procedures, the Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land and passed an award dated 3. 1987 assessing the compensation in a sum of Rs.40/- 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 claimant-Kuppan examined himself as C.W.I and no exhibit was marked. On the side of the respondent, one K. Sundaram was examined as R.W.I and Exhibits R-1 to R-4 were marked. Ultimately, the Sub-Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- 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 abnormal increase in assessing the value of the land by the Sub-Court is, without any basis.” 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Sub-Court’s enhancement of compensation from Rs.40/- per cent to Rs.1,500/- per cent is justifiable and proper. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader placing reliance on the grounds of Appeal would develop his argument to the effect that the Reference Court without any objectivity, imaginarily enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per cent from Rs.40/- per cent. Even the very Exhibit C-1, which the Reference Court relied on had not been sent to this Court and not even listed under the judgment. Exhibit R-1 would refer to a Settlement Deed, which itself cannot be the criterion for assessing the compensation and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Court. .8. Even the very Exhibit C-1, which the Reference Court relied on had not been sent to this Court and not even listed under the judgment. Exhibit R-1 would refer to a Settlement Deed, which itself cannot be the criterion for assessing the compensation and accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Court. .8. A mere perusal of the judgment would exemplify and indicate that the attitude of the Reference Court is far from satisfactory and it over reached itself. The judgment would refer to a Settlement Deed dated 21. 1980 relating to Survey No. 548/2 as though the land was valued therein at Rs.1,740/-per cent. But in the list of documents, it is found stated that no document was exhibited. 9. Repeated letters sent by the Registry of this Court to the lower Court evoked no positive response but what could be understand from the correspondences is that no such document as Settlement Deed dated 21. 1980 was available with the lower Court. To say the least, actually, this is a serious flaw on the part of the lower Court in adjudging the matter before it. 10. The learned counsel for the land owner also could not produce any certified copy of the said Settlement Deed. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader would appropriately and appositely, convincingly and correctly argue that a Settlement Deed cannot be the base for assessing the compensation as the settled proposition of law is to the effect that the amount arrived at between a willing purchaser and a willing seller should be the base. But, in the Settlement deed, there will be no willing purchaser and willing seller and it is quite obvious under this count also, the Reference Court, viz., the Sub-Court failed in its duty in appropriately understanding the law and applying it. 12. In this factual matrix, inasmuch as this Court from the available materials, should render justice, suo motu refers to Exhibit R-2, the Sales Statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, so as to find out as to whether any sale item could be relied on by this Court as the safe criterion to assess the compensation. 12. In this factual matrix, inasmuch as this Court from the available materials, should render justice, suo motu refers to Exhibit R-2, the Sales Statistics gathered by the Land Acquisition Officer, so as to find out as to whether any sale item could be relied on by this Court as the safe criterion to assess the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer gathered as many as 60 sales particulars in Thirumalai Village, Polur Taluk and out of those sales particulars, the highest value is found referred to, in Item No. 33, which would exemplify that an extent of 22 acres of land in Survey No. 282/3 was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/- which means per acre was sold in a sum of Rs. 45,454/-in other words, per cent of land was valued in a sum of Rs. 4554. The question might arise why such an item should be chosen. No doubt, the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to the landless Adi Dravida community people and a such, the plot value could rightly be considered. No doubt, the said Item No.33 refers to Survey No. 282/3, which presumably should be away from the land acquired in Survey No. 457/1B in that village. In the absence of any other clinching evidence and documents, certainly Item No. 33 could be chosen as the base for assessing the compensation. Even though in Item No. 33, there is no specification that 20 cents of land refers to habitation area, nonetheless, comparing the other sales, it is crystal clear that, it is disproportionately high, which connotes and denotes that it must be a plot area and accordingly, if viewed and visualized the land acquired being agricultural land, could be quantified and assessed at Rs.454.54/- per cent. Inasmuch as agricultural land is valued as plot, necessarily 1/3 of it should be deducted towards development charges in (view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases: .(1) Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malta Atchinaidu, AIR 2007 SC 740 (2) Ravinder Narain and Another v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1987 : (2003) 4 SCC 481 ; (3) Nelson Femandes and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 : (2007) 3 MLJ 751; (4) Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 554 : (2008) 1 MLJ 1038; (5) Basavva Smt. And Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others, AIR 1996 SC 3168 : (1996) 9 SCC 640 . 13. The purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites for Adi Dravida community people and necessarily 1/3 of the extent should be deducted towards laying roads and providing drainage facilities and park facilities, etc., as such, the following formula emerges: Per cent of land is valued at Rs. 454.54 Rounded off to Rs.455/- 1/3rd deduction towards development charges Rs.455x 1/3 Rs.152/- Net value Rs. 303/- 14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the lower Court at Rs.1,500/- per cent. I also make it clear that the land owner is entitled to all other statutory benefits. 15. The appeal is partly allowed with the above modification. However, there shall be no order as to costs.