Judgment :- These Appeals are directed against the award and judgment passed by the Lower Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.196, 197, 211, 212, 199, 213, 200, 199, 201 and 204 of 1991, dated 37. 1996 by the claimants and the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu has proposed to acquire lands in Maiyyur Village an extent of 774. 5 Hectares, in Kundrathur Village 51. 5 Hectares and in Neikuppi Village an extent of 482. 0 Hectares, totaling extent of 123.08.0 Hectares for the purpose of building 500 MV Fast Breeder Reactor by the Departmental of Atomic Energy Project, Kalpakkam, for the construction of staff quarters and for construction of staff quarters respectively. The said villages are located in Chengalpattu Taluk, Chengai Anna District. Among the said acquisition, the lands in Neikuppi village measuring an 1 extent of 482. 0 Hectares were acquired from the claimants in these Appeals and the Government had issued necessary 4(1) notification along with other acquisitions on 6. 1988 and had proceeded with the other enquiry process. The Land Acquisition Officer had, during the enquiry, collected datas for the purpose of fixing the value for the lands under the acquisition and accordingly, he had collected the sales statistics for the period commencing from 25. 1987 to 05.06.1988 from the Sub-Registrar Office, Thirukalukundram and had collected 12 data sales from Neikuppi Village, from out of the total sales statistics of 177. The Land Acquisition Officer had discarded the 11 data particulars from 2 to 12 for the reasons that they are either meager value or higher value. One of the sales was also rejected for the reason that the sale was of the record of receipt. Yet another sale was discarded for the reason it was located far away. 3. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer had selected the sale, dated 25.06.1987, in S.No.31/11 of an extent of 1.05 Acres sold for the consideration of Rs.7,350/-. According to the said sale transaction, one cent of land was valued at Rs.70/-. The claimants, who were not agreeing to the said offer proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer, had requested the Land acquisition Officer to refer them to the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and accordingly they were referred and the cases had been taken on record as L.A.O.P. Nos. 196, 212, 199, 213, 200, 197, 211, 201, 204 & 214 of 1991. The claimants, who were not agreeing to the said offer proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer, had requested the Land acquisition Officer to refer them to the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and accordingly they were referred and the cases had been taken on record as L.A.O.P. Nos. 196, 212, 199, 213, 200, 197, 211, 201, 204 & 214 of 1991. The Said L.A.O.Ps were taken up for enquiry along with four more L.A.O.Ps in L.A.O.P.Nos. 198, 202, 203, 205 of 1991 and were disposed of on 31.07.1996 by fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.140/-per cent. Aggrieved against the said Judgment, the claimants have preferred the Appeals in A.S.No.102 to 105 and 256 of 1998 and A.S.Nos.501 & 504 of 1999 and the government have preferred the appeals in A.S. Nos 807 to 814 of 2004. 4. Since all the Appeals are preferred by the parties against the common Judgment pronounced by the Lower Court, it has become necessary for this Court to take up all the Appeals clubbed together and heard them accordingly. 5. For convenience, the parties in these Appeals are referred as to their ranks before the Lower Court as claimants, Requisitioning Body/Government and Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Heard Mr. M.S. Subramanian appearing for the claimants in all the cases, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Krishnan appearing for Mr. R. Murali, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Requisitioning Body, the Union of India and Mr. V. Ravi, Special Government Pleader for the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit in his argument that the fixation of market value by the Lower Court based upon the evidence adduced before it was, not appreciated properly and the correct market value has not been fixed by the Lower Court. He would further submit in his argument that the lands acquired were admittedly for the purpose of constructing Staff Quarters and the land compared and fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was a dry punja land, which is far away from the acquired lands, and the acquired land is abutting the main road and also very much adjacent to the house sites in the village and the documentary evidence submitted by the claimants in Exs.A2 to A4 were not considered by the Lower Court, which is very much against the interest of the claimants. He would further submit that the land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value at Rs.70/- per cent, whereas in the data sales scrutinized by him are the lands available with higher value, but he had rejected those statistics on the reason that it is lose higher value, which is against the law down by the Honourable Apex Court reported in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ (SC) 45. He would further submit that the Lower Court had also followed the said fixation and had considered that those lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Staff Quarters and therefore, enhanced the compensation by another time and fixed the value at Rs.140/- per cent. The data sales rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer as higher value were located in S.Nos.44/2B2, 44/2B5, they were sold on 25.04.1988 and 03.06.1988 at the value of Rs.120/- per cent. Therefore, he would submit that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.70/- per cent and the Lower Court, had relied upon the said valuation, enhanced it to Rs.140/- considering the potentiality of the said land are basically erroneous in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. He would further submit that the Lower Court had not considered the situation of the acquired land abutting the road which could be fetching more value than that of the land compared by the Land Acquisition Officer. The documents showing the value of house sites in Exs.A2 to A4 very much adjacent to the road and the acquired lands were not considered by the Lower Court. The said documents of the lands produced by the claimants are very near to the acquired lands and suitable modality may be adopted for fixing the value of the acquired lands with the help of those documents produced by the claimants. The data land adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Lower Court in S.No.31/11 is adjacent to the cremation ground of the village and the value of the said land will not depict the true value then prevailed in the village or the acquired land. The data land adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Lower Court in S.No.31/11 is adjacent to the cremation ground of the village and the value of the said land will not depict the true value then prevailed in the village or the acquired land. He would further submit that Ex.A2 even though it is not abutting the main road, it was sold at Rs.1,300/- per cent and the acquired lands, which were acquired in small extent from various claimants should have been adopted with the same value. He would also submit that the Lower Court having accepted that they were acquired for the purpose of constructing Staff Quarters had lost sight of the value fixed for the house site for applying of the same with acquired lands. 9. He would again submit in his argument that the Lower Court should have adopted the said value by using the deduction method and thereby, fixed the value. He would cite a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court made in Kasthuri and others v. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354 , that 1/3rd of the amount of the compensation has to be deducted when undeveloped lands were acquired for residential or commercial purposes and 20% deduction towards development charges can be made as against the normal 1/3rd deduction if the facts of the case justify. 10. He would further submit that even if 1/3rd is deducted from the said value (i.e.) Rs.1,300/- per one cent that would be amounting of Rs.433/- per cent and the remaining value would be Rs.867/- per cent. He would again submit in his argument that Ex.A2 dated 12. 1987 is six months prior to the date of 4(1) notification. He would submit that when the agricultural lands are acquired to make them as residential plots the normal deduction would be at 1/3rd of its value and in support of his argument, he would cite the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. V. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer, 2003 (12) SCC 642. 11. He would again cite yet another Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through LRs. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 (10) SCC 525 , in support of his case. V. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer, 2003 (12) SCC 642. 11. He would again cite yet another Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through LRs. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 (10) SCC 525 , in support of his case. Therefore, he would submit that appreciation in respect of exhalation of price may also be given in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court made in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Kanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, 2002 (3) SCC 688 , to that effect that 10% of the value can be awarded for every subsequent year for fixing the market value. He would also cite an other Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Krishi Utpandan Mandi Samithi, Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar, 2004 (2) SCC 283 and Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Union of India and another, 2004 (10) SCC 627 , for the similar preposition of law regarding the appreciation of land for every year at 15% and 12% respectively. 12. Therefore, he would submit that 5% may be added to that value to fix the correct value and if such 5% is added, the additional value would be Rs.43/- per cent and totally a sum of Rs.910/- would be the value per one cent land. He would also submit that the acquired lands were admittedly located abutting the road in S.No.28 of Neicuppi Village. The Lower Court had also discussed that the said land was located at the road and therefore, 10% additional allowance may be given for such potentiality and accordingly, a sum of Rs.90/- per cent may be added to that effect and a total value of Rs.1,000/- per cent could have been fixed for the acquired lands. 13. He would also submit in his argument that the lands acquired from the claimants are of similar extents, which are less than one Acre except in L.A.O.P.Nos.201 & 212 of 1991. Therefore, he would submit that there can not be any deduction for adopting the value of lesser extent with that of larger extent of land acquired from the claimants. He would insists that all the claimants except those persons, were holding the smaller extent and they can not be termed as a larger extent for application of the value by deduction from the value of land mentioned in Ex.A.2. He would insists that all the claimants except those persons, were holding the smaller extent and they can not be termed as a larger extent for application of the value by deduction from the value of land mentioned in Ex.A.2. For that purpose he would cite another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another with Executive Engineer and another v. Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others, 2001 (9) SCC 584 . Therefore, he would request the Court that the fixation of market value by the Lower Court is not at all justifiable and actual value of the land acquired shall be in accordance with the law laid down by our Honourable Apex Court. Moreover, he would also submit that the potentiality of the acquired lands were estimated very much lesser by the Lower Court and the higher value of the land should have been adopted when the particulars are given by the claimant through evidence. He would draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court reported in The State of Madras, rep. by the Collector of Madras, Madras-1 v. P. Seetharamammal, rep. by her Advocate, Sri S. Krishnaswami Iyer and others, 1972 (1) MLJ 58 , for the said proposition. He would again submit in his argument that the claim made by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer will not be a bar for the claimants to claim more amount and the land acquired for the same purpose should have been awarded similar compensation as per Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act. He would again submit that the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.201, 204, and 214 of 1991 (the respondents in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004) are also entitled to the enhanced compensation in par with the other claimants, who are the appellants in A.S.Nos.102, 105, 256 of 1998, 501 & 504 of 1999, in view of the judgment of Honourable Apex Court reported in Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2008 (10) SCC 797 . He would again submit that the Government in the Appeals A.S.Nos.807, 808, 809, 811 & 812 of 2004 had not questioned the Lower Court’s judgment as highly enhanced in view of the ‘constructive res judicata’ emanated against the Government since it did not file any Appeal against the judgment passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.197 and 211 of 1991 (The claimants/appellants in A.S.Nos.103 & 104 of 1998). Therefore, he would submit that the higher compensation may be awarded at Rs.1,000/- per cent and thus the Appeals in A.S.Nos.102 to 105 & 256 of 1998 and A.S.Nos.501 & 504 of 1999 may be allowed and the Appeal preferred by the Government in A.S.Nos.807 to 814 of 2004 may be dismissed. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Body (the appellants in A.S.Nos 807 to 814 of 2004) would submit in his argument that the Lower Court had not considered the evidence and improportionately enhanced the compensation to 100% when it had accepted the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would also submit that the house site can not be taken for the value to be fixed for the acquired lands which were the agricultural lands. He would also submit that the burden is heavily upon claimants who are occupying the place of the plaintiffs in a Civil Suit, to prove their case including the potentiality of the land. He would drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 , in support of his case. 15. He would further submit that the documents produced by the claimant in Exs.A2 to A4 are for the extent of one cent, 4 cent and an area for digging well respectively and those documents will not depict the true value on the acquired lands since they were classified as Grama Natham and are within the habitant of village people. He would also submit that the value of small extent of lands cannot be applied for the larger extent of the lands acquired for the purpose of constructing staff quarters, for a total extent of 482. 0 Hectares. He would also submit that the value of small extent of lands cannot be applied for the larger extent of the lands acquired for the purpose of constructing staff quarters, for a total extent of 482. 0 Hectares. The Lower Court had not assessed the correct value, for potentiality, but it had raised it to 100% and it could be raised only to a value of Rs.90/- per cent from Rs.70/- per cent as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He would further submit that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered every aspect in fixing the value and it had decided to select the nearest land in S.No.31/11 for fixing the value, which is perfectly suitable to the acquired lands and it being a liberal one, the award enhancing the compensation from Rs.70/- to Rs.140/- by the learned Sub-Judge was without any basis and it has to be set aside. He would further submit that the concept of increasing the value of the acquired land on potentiality is applicable, if the situation of the land is such that it is located in a fast improving house site area, but the village Neicuppi is situated in a remote area and at no stretch of imagination it can be considered as a fast improving house site area. He would also submit that the lands comprised in Exs.A.2 to A.4 are located in Natham S.No.141, which are for away from the acquired lands than the data lands relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer. A similar portion of the land as suggested by the claimants in their evidence cannot be relied upon and it would not depict the correct value of the acquired land. Therefore, the award passed by the Lower Court by enhancing the value from Rs.70/- to Rs.140/-has to be set aside and the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.70/-per cent may be fixed and thereby the Appeals filed by the claimants in A.S.No.102 to 105 and 256 of 1998 and A.S.Nos.501 & 504 of 1999 may be dismissed and the Appeals filed by the Requisitioning Body in A.S.Nos.807 to 814 of 2004 may be allowed. 16. 16. The learned Special Government Pleader (AS) would submit in his argument that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.70/-per cent is in comparison with the adjacent land situated in S.No.31/11 and the said fixation need not be disturbed since the other data lands are away from the acquired lands and the lands comprised in Ex.A2 to Ex.A.5 are the Grama Natham lands meant for putting up houses by the village people and they are located away from the acquired lands. He would further submit that the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was the correct market value for a willing purchaser, who is ready to give the price, from the willing seller and therefore, the enhancement of compensation ordered by the lower Court is also not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Appeals preferred by the claimants may be dismissed and the Appeal preferred by the Requisitioning Body may be allowed. 17. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. The admitted facts before this Court would be that the landed properties in S.No.28 of Neicuppi Village to an extent of 48. 0 Hectares were acquired along with other lands for the purpose of constructing staff quarters for the Department of Atomic Energy. The Land Acquisition Officer had gathered particulars regarding the sales prior to the date of 4(1) notification viz., 6. 1988 and had selected for the sale of land in S.No.31/11 which took place on 25.06.1987 for fixing the market value of acquired lands. On the basis, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the value at Rs.70/-. The Land Acquisition Officer had also produced Ex.B.2, a sale dated 12. 1988 in the same survey number for the same value. The Land Acquisition Officer, while coming to the conclusion of suggesting the value at Rs.70/- as per the aforesaid data land, had not considered the other sales statistics. On perusal of 12 sale statistics, he had rejected Items 11 & 12, which were dated 25.04.1988 and 5. 1988 as the values are higher side. There is no dispute that the said lands in Items 11 & 12 are also dry punja lands in the same village. On a perusal of Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.3, village maps, we could see that the said lands are on the other side of the road situated four survey numbers away from the acquired lands. There is no dispute that the said lands in Items 11 & 12 are also dry punja lands in the same village. On a perusal of Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.3, village maps, we could see that the said lands are on the other side of the road situated four survey numbers away from the acquired lands. The reason assigned by Land Acquisition Officer for rejecting the said values, of the lands in Items 11 & 12 is not justifiable. 18. It has been laid down in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sri Ram M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45 (SC), would run as follows: “It seems to be only fair that the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. There is a reason why an average of the sale deeds should have been taken in the instant case.” It is also laid down by this Court in The State of Madras, rep. by the Collector of Madras, Madras-1 v. P. Seetharamammal, rep. by her Advocate, Sri S. Krishaswami Iyer and others, 1972 (1) MLJ 58 , following the said principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45 (SC), the relevant passage would be as follows: “Where the Government relies upon a number of transactions of sale in fixing the value of the property under acquisition the highest value amongst the sales should be preferred to the rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course” As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in the above said judgments, the highest value of the sale transaction relied upon by the Government should have been preferred for fixing the market value. Therefore, the value fixed in Items 11 & 12 ought to have been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of suggesting the market value. The only reason assigned by him was that the value was on the higher side. Therefore, the value fixed in Items 11 & 12 ought to have been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of suggesting the market value. The only reason assigned by him was that the value was on the higher side. Such a reason is not supported by any piece of evidence to raise strong suspicion cannot be sustained and, therefore, the suggestion of market value by the Land acquisition Officer at Rs.70/- is ex facie not sustainable. 19. The Lower Court had, after analyzing the evidence and other circumstances of the case had accepted the fixing of the market value at Rs.70/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer and had awarded further sum over the said value towards potentiality. The Lower Court had also not accepted the case of the claimants that the value should have been fixed on the basis of Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4. But it had relied upon the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. When the marker value suggested or fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is found to be not in accordance with law, then the fixation of market value relying upon the said value fixed by the Lower Court is also unsustainable. 20. In this backdrop when we go into the question of fixing the market value for acquired lands, we have to bear in mind the cardinal principle for fixing the market value. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 , which flows thus: “It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation that what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. If the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in bead role of decisions”. It is the bounden duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of the human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in bead role of decisions”. It is also the dictum that the Court is required to keep in its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the lands and for that it has to occupy the seat of a willing purchaser in a normal human conduct would be willing to buy with the broad mind in normal market condition prevailing in the open market in the location in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under 4(1) of the Act. While seeking such an answer to the question the market value could be assessed and arrived. In that process when we go into the question of fixing the market value as per the claim of the learned counsel for the claimants we could see that he has requested the Court to fix the market value on the basis of Ex.A.2, in which a Grama Natham land in S.No.141 was sold for Rs.1,300/- for one cent. In the said sale an extent of land sold was only one cent, whereas the other Sale Deeds-Ex.A.3 & Ex.A.4 would show some larger extent than the extent of land shown in Ex.A.2. The value stated in Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 would be Rs.400/- per cent approximately. 21. The learned counsel would insist for taking the said value of Rs.1,300/- as per Ex.A.2 for the purpose of fixing the value as per the dictum laid down in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 45 (SC). As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court we could see that the value of higher land should have been adopted for fixing the market value. As far as this case is concerned, the acquired land is a dry punja land or agricultural land which is not similar to the land classified in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court we could see that the value of higher land should have been adopted for fixing the market value. As far as this case is concerned, the acquired land is a dry punja land or agricultural land which is not similar to the land classified in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4. The question as suggested by the learned counsel for the claimants for deductions towards fixing market value for other types of lands without par with house sites and the appreciation of the value at various percentages towards escalation of price and the potentiality appreciation would be applicable since the character and quality of the land in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 are not similar to that of the acquired lands. 22. No doubt it is true that the acquired lands are near to the lands situated in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4. Those lands can be compared for fixing the value of the acquired lands when similar lands are not available during the relevant period for finding the correct value. No doubt it is true that the nature of data land relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is similar to the lands acquired. But it has been already found that such adoption of value, was lower than the value mentioned in Items 11 & 12. Whether, in such circumstances the value of Items 11 & 12 should have been adopted for the acquired lands in the question to be decided. The said lands in S.No.44 (Items 11 and 12 of data lands) are located on the opposite side of the road which is abutting the acquired lands. 23. The acquired lands are situated very near to Neicuppi village than that of the lands in S.No.44 in which the highest value for Punja land has been found. Those lands are situated far away from the lands acquired than the lands comprised in Exs.A2 to A4. The distance and the location of those lands away from the village, will not reflect the value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the said value of the land in S.No.44 (Items 11 & 12 in the sale statistics) could not be adopted for the purpose of fixing the value of the acquired land due to its non proximity to Neikuppi village. 24. Therefore, the said value of the land in S.No.44 (Items 11 & 12 in the sale statistics) could not be adopted for the purpose of fixing the value of the acquired land due to its non proximity to Neikuppi village. 24. According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants that the acquired lands are admittedly having the potentiality of putting up the constructions of houses. The said property was acquired only for the purpose of putting up staff quarters for the department of Atomic Energy. Moreover, it has been categorically admitted by R.W.1-Land Acquisition Officer in his cross-examination that those acquired lands were having potential value as building site. He had also categorically admitted that he did not consider the potential value for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, we could see that the acquired lands are having the potentiality of being converted into house sites. 25. In this background when we consider the quantum of percentage to be offered towards potentiality we can now see the value fixed in Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 the value of the house sites were prevailing at Rs.1,300/-, Rs.420/- and Rs.400/- respectively. When there is a probability of becoming the house site in future and the land has been acquired only for constructing Staff quarters certainly the acquired lands would become the house sites in future and therefore, the value mentioned in Exs.A2 to A4 could have been considered as similar quality of lands even though they were classified differently. When the value of the land in Ex.A2 is verified, it was effected at Rs.1,300/- for only one cent. The said sale deed which was very much relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants will not depict the correct value. As far as Exs.A3 and A4 are concerned, Ex.A3 was effected for 4 cents and Ex.A4 was effected for almost similar extent of land which are valued at Rs.420/- and Rs.400/- per one cent respectively. Therefore, when the potentiality of the acquired land is considered the value fixed at Rs.420/- rounded to Rs.400/- for the house site could be taken as the value fixed for the lands acquired. When it is applied for fixing the market value of larger extent the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court should be kept in mind. 26. Therefore, when the potentiality of the acquired land is considered the value fixed at Rs.420/- rounded to Rs.400/- for the house site could be taken as the value fixed for the lands acquired. When it is applied for fixing the market value of larger extent the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court should be kept in mind. 26. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kasthuri and others v. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354 , it is read as follows: “……….7. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in deducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental 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 developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. 17. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be, the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3rd normal deduction.” On a careful perusal of the dictum and on consideration that the lands acquired in these Appeals are smaller than one acre in extent, except 2 cases, the percentage of deduction towards development charges could have been fixed at 25% to arrive at a value of Rs.300/- per cent. Therefore, the total valuation of the acquired land could have been fixed at Rs.300/- per cent. Therefore, the total valuation of the acquired land could have been fixed at Rs.300/- per cent. It would be justifiable because already developed house sites as described in Ex.A.3 & Ex.A.4 would only fetch the market price of Rs.420/- and Rs.400/- only per cent at that time. Therefore, this Court feels it just to fix the market value of Rs.300/- per cent for the acquired land. The value fixed by the Lower Court at Rs.140/- cannot be a correct market value for the acquired lands and therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Lower Court has to be modified accordingly. 27. As far as the Appeals filed by the claimants are concerned the market value sought for by them at Rs.1,000/- per cent is not sustainable. However, they have to be allowed in part to an extent of Rs.300/- per one cent. As regards the Appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Body are concerned, they questioned the quantum of compensation fixed by the Lower Court. Since the value fixed by the Lower Court is revised and enhanced, these Appeals are not sustainable and, therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. 28. At this juncture it has to be borne in mind that every person should be given equal as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court had already decided in a similar case reported in Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Pudukottai v. RM. Ramasamy and 3 others, 2001 (1) LW 120 . The relevant passage would run as follows: “19. I hold that both the requirements for the exercise of the power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., are fully satisfied in the present case and hence I hold that the respondents are entitled to same rate of compensation for the land acquired as determined by this Court. The relevant passage would run as follows: “19. I hold that both the requirements for the exercise of the power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., are fully satisfied in the present case and hence I hold that the respondents are entitled to same rate of compensation for the land acquired as determined by this Court. I do not find any insurmountable difficulty or hurdle in not exercising the discretionary power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., on the facts of the case and accordingly, to render complete justice between the parties, I am inclined to exercise the discretion and power conferred under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. Hence I hold that the objection raised that the non-filing of memorandum of cross-objection by the respondents is only a technical objection on the facts of the case and it does not prevent the Court from exercising its power under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C.” when the principle is applied in these Appeals, the respondents in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004 namely the claimants in L.A.O.P.Nos.201, 204 & 214 of 1991 are also found entitled to the enhancement of compensation on the basis of the fixation of market value made in the connected land acquisition cases in view of the aforesaid judgment. 29. Moreover, the view taken by this Court is also supported by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2008 (10) SCC 797 , portion would run thus: “In the impugned order, the High Court, after taking note of the yield notification issued by the government and price list notified by the competent authority for crops (both are public documents), concluded that market value of the land is Rs.66,550/- per Acre. Therefore, the appellant’s omission to make appropriate claim before the High Court after paying the requisite Court fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bona fide. In our view, the High Court should have, after taking note of the peculiar facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded higher compensation to the appellants subject to the condition of paying the balance Court fee. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably modified. This, having not been done, we feel that ends of justice could be met if the impugned order is suitably modified. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is modified and the market value of the land fixed by the High Court is enhanced to Rs.68,550/- per acre. This order, however, will be subject to the payment of further amount of Court-fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court. After assessment, the Registry shall intimate the deficit amount of Court-fee to be payable by the appellant to his counsel, which shall be paid within two months from the date intimation is received by the counsel from the High Court.” 30. In the result, the Compensation is fixed at Rs.300/- per cent and the Appeals preferred by the Claimants are accordingly partly allowed and the Appeals preferred by the Requisitioning Body are dismissed. Further, In view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents/claimants in A.S.Nos.810, 813 & 814 of 2004 are entitled to a modified market value of the land at Rs.300/- per cent with statutory benefits subject to the payment of further amount of Court-fee to be assessed by the Registry of the High Court. The decree in those Appeals will be drafted only after the payment of the said deficient amount of Court fee payable by the respondents/claimants. No cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The learned Special Government Pleader and the Senior Counsel appearing for the Requisitioning Body enlightened this Court to arrive to a just conclusion along with the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. The fees for the learned Special Government Pleader as well as the Learned Senior Counsel for the Requisitioning Body shall be at Rs.3,000/- per Appeal (each Appeal). The Requisitioning Body is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount to the claimants with all statutory benefits within a period of three months time.