Judgment : Per S. TAMILVANAN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1996 made in L.A.O.P. No. 19 of 1993 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Referring Officer/Special Tahsildar (ADW) Chengam has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the lands belong to the respondents were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adidravidars. For which, notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act was published on 10.11.1982. It is not in dispute that the lands in S. No. 60/2, to an extent of 5.21 acres belongs to the first and sixth respondents, to an extent of 0.89 cents in S. No. 61/2Cl belongs to the second respondent and to an extent of 0.78 cents in S. No. 60/3 belongs to respondents 3 to 5 were acquired by the appellant herein. After the enquiry as per the Land Acquisition Act, the Referring Officer/appellant has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 30/- per cent for the lands acquired in S. No. 60/2 and 60/3 and at Rs. 50/-per cent for the land acquired in S. No. 61/2Cl. The respondents/claimants received the amounts under-protest and at their request, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. On the side of the respondents/claimants, P.W.I to 3 were examined. But however, no document was marked on the side of the Referring Officer/appellant. The then Special Tahsildar (ADW), Chengam has been examined as R.W.I. Apart from examining P.Ws. 1 to 3, on the side of the respondents, Exhibit P-l to Exhibit P-15 were marked. Out of which, the Exhibit P-2 is the topo-sketch showing the acquired lands on the said date. Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 are the copy of sale deeds dated 30.3.1981 and 23.8.1981 respectively and Exhibit P-1 is the sales statistics. Based on the oral and documentary evidences, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1.75 per square foot. Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 are the copy of sale deeds dated 30.3.1981 and 23.8.1981 respectively and Exhibit P-1 is the sales statistics. Based on the oral and documentary evidences, the Land Acquisition Tribunal, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 1.75 per square foot. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to pay the compensation with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession and 30% solatium and also 9% interest for one year from the date of award and 15% subsequent interest as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. According to him, the total lands acquired was to an extent of 6.88 acres. The Land Acquisition Tribunal considering the details available in the sales statistics related to a land, an extent of 2244 sq. ft., in Serial No. 52, in Exhibit P-1, decided the market value of the larger extent of land at Rs. 1.75 per sq.ft. which is legally not sustainable. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the respondents have not produced any supportive document to substantiate their claims for enhancement of compensation. However, there is no bar in relying on the document marked by the appellant herein, who was the respondent before the land Acquisition Tribunal. Exhibit P-I is a copy of the sales statistics register, belongs to Iyyampattu village for the period of 10.11.1975 to 10.11.1982 which is a document produced by the appellant herein. However, it is binding on the appellant. The evidence adduced by the both sides would substantiate the fact that the acquired lands are situated abutting Tiruvannamalai- Chengam Main Road, in a developed area, nearby residential houses. 5. Mr. M.Sarfuddin Ali Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there need not be any deduction for development expenses, since the acquired land is situated abutting the main road and fit for converting into house sites. On a perusal of the document and recorded evidence available on record, it is clear that the land in S. No. 66/1, an extent of 2244 sq.ft. On a perusal of the document and recorded evidence available on record, it is clear that the land in S. No. 66/1, an extent of 2244 sq.ft. in the same village had been sold on 21.10.1988 and that the sale transaction had taken place between one Jagathambal and one Raja. Therefore, merely because of the aforesaid land is the smallar extent of 2244 sq.ft., the same cannot be rejected for deciding the market value of the acquired land as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Even a small extent of land can be considered while computing the value of larger extent of acquired land, in the absence of any other sale of smaller extent of land sold prior to the date of 4(1) notification. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has also not disputed the sale of smaller extent of land could be considered for fixing the market value. However, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that as the land referred to in Exhibit PI-Sales Statistics is a house site of minimum extent, reasonable deduction should be made towards development expenses. 7. Mr. M. Sarfuddin Ali Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents cited the decision in Atma Singh (died) through legal heirs and Others v. State of Haryana and Another 2007 AIR SCW 7835, whereby, the Hon‘ble Apex Court has allowed 20% deduction towards development charges in the market value. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the above said A.S., acquired land was of larger extend, though the data land was a smaller extent In the same judgment, it has been referred as follows at p. 810 of MLJ: “Shri Verma has also referred to Kasturi and Others v. State of Haryana Kasturi and Others v. State of Haryana Kasturi and Others v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , wherein, it was observed that in cases of those land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases, it is more than l/3rd and in some cases less than l/3rd. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases, it is more than l/3rd and in some cases less than l/3rd. Therefore, in this case taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land for construction of residential and commercial buildings, the deduction made was only 20%”. 8. It is clear in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court that when a smaller extent of land is taken into consideration for fixing the market value, a reasonable deduction should be made towards development expenses. In the instant case, the land referred to in SI. No. 52 of Exhibit PI, relates to S. No. 66/1 as per Topo-sketch, the said land is also abutting the main road of the acquired land. But in the above said lands, an extent of 2244 sq.ft. is admittedly sold as house site. Though the acquired land is also fit to be converted into house site, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, while computing the market value on par with a house site, reasonable deduction in the value is necessary. As per the topo-sketch, only on the front portion, the acquired land is abutting the main road. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court of the view that 20% deduction towards development expenses while computing the market value of the acquired land on par with 2244 sq.ft. of land in S. No. 66/1 would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, this appeal has to be decided, after making 20% deduction towards development charges for the acquired land and the respective respondents/claimants are entitled for compensation at Rs. 1.40 sq.ft. with 12% additional amount from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking over possession, 30% solatium and also 9% interest for one year from the date of award and 15% subsequent interest, after deducting the amount already received by the claimants/respondents. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.