Judgment These Second Appeals and Revisions are preferred by the Government being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in LA CMA Nos.16 & 23/1999 and CMA Nos.14, 15, 17, 22 & 24/1999 respectively enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.356/- per cent to Rs.1500/-per cent of the lands acquired for grant of house site pattas to Adi Dravidars of Pathirapuliyur village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. 2. Though the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dealt with both LA CMAs and CMAs by separate Judgments, since common points are involved, both the Second Appeals and Revisions were heard together and shall stand disposed by this common Judgment. 3. Land Acquisition Officer and Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme Special Tahsildar, Tindivanam had taken acquisition proceedings for the purpose of free house site pattas to the Adi Dravidars residing at Pathirapuliyur village, Tindivanam Taluk. Total extent of 52. 0 Hectares of lands were acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme from the Claimants under Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 1978 and Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Act, 1979 and passed an Award No.21/98-99 dated 23. 1999. As per the Award, Special Tahsildar had fixed Claimants land value at Rs.356/- per cent and land owners were paid compensation. Amount has been received by the Claimants and other relevant Claimants under protest. .4. Stating that Special Tahsildar has not taken into consideration the Claimants land Soil, Fertility, Tharam, Agricultural and classification to fix the market value of Claimants land, Claimants have filed Appeals before the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam seeking enhancement of compensation. Claimants have contended that Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme Special Tahsildar selected two documents as guideline documents and the lands covered under those documents are very far away from the acquired lands. According to the Claimants, the land nearer to the acquired lands were not taken as data documents and the Special Tahsildar fixed very low amount of Rs.356/- per cent. Claimants claimed the land value at Rs.2000/- per cent and 15% solatium and also interest. 5. On the side of Claimants, respective Claimants were examined as CW1 and one Udayakumar was examined as CW2 and Exs.A1 was marked. On the side of the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Special Tahsildar was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Claimants claimed the land value at Rs.2000/- per cent and 15% solatium and also interest. 5. On the side of Claimants, respective Claimants were examined as CW1 and one Udayakumar was examined as CW2 and Exs.A1 was marked. On the side of the Land Acquisition Tahsildar, Special Tahsildar was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Principal Subordinate Judge held that the lands sold under Ex.A1 [12.05.1995] sale deed in S.No.141/3 is very nearer to the acquired lands and taking into account Ex.A1, Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.1500/-per cent and also granted 15% solatium. Interest on the enhanced amount was awarded at 6% p.a. and 9% p.a. interest was also awarded for solatium amount for the period from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit of the amount. .6. Details of lands acquired, amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Tahsildar and enhancement ordered by the Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam is as under :- .TABLE 7. Being aggrieved by the enhanced compensation, Government preferred these Second Appeals and Revisions. At the time of admission of Second Appeals, the following substantial questions of law were formulated in the Second Appeal for consideration :- 1) Whether the lower appellate court below is correct in allowing the respondent to let in oral evidence and also marking document in the appellate stage especially when Sec.9 of the Act does not contemplate taking any evidence and also when the application of the provisions of C.P.C. are explicitly banned? 2) Whether the lower appellate court is excluded in its jurisdiction in entertaining the oral and documentary evidence let in by the respondent herein even though there is no power conferred to the appellate authority under Sec.9 of the Act? 1) Whether the lower appellate court below is correct in allowing the respondent to let in oral evidence and also marking document in the appellate stage especially when Sec.9 of the Act does not contemplate taking any evidence and also when the application of the provisions of C.P.C. are explicitly banned? 2) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in entertaining the appeal on payment of court fee of Rs.5/- instead of amount awarded and claimed as contemplated under Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act? 8. Mrs. 2) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in entertaining the appeal on payment of court fee of Rs.5/- instead of amount awarded and claimed as contemplated under Sec.51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act? 8. Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) submitted that unlike Sec.18 of Land Acquisition Act, in cases arising under Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 [for short Harijan Welfare Schemes], Appellate Court cannot record evidence and while so, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge erred in recording the evidence to enhance the compensation. It was further submitted that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge erred in taking Ex.A1 sale deed as basis for enhancing the compensation at Rs.1500/- per cent. It was further argued that as per the well settled position of law for development and other aspects, Court has not passed an order for 1/3rd deduction and suitable deduction has to be made for development charges. 9. Mr R. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the Claimants submitted that the data land in S.No.143/1 is situated three furlongs away from the acquired lands and cannot form basis for awarding compensation. Placing reliance upon 2004 (8) SCC 14 [Union of India and others v. Mukesh Hans], it was submitted that for grant of enhanced compensation, Court can well record evidence. 10. Ex.B5 [24. 1995] – data document is the sale deed infavour of Namasivayam by Andalammal for S.No.143/1 – 0.39 acres sold for Rs.14,000/-. From Ex.B3 [33. 2003] – Plan, it is seen that S.No.143/1, data land is situated on the eastern side of the road far away from the acquired lands which is on the western side of the road. 11. Ex.A1 [12.05.1995] is the sale deed infavour of Raji by Udayakumar for S.No.141/3 – 0.48 acres for Rs.72,000/-. From Ex.B3 – Plan, it is seen that the acquired lands are situated on the western side of Veedur-Senthur panchayat road. S.No.141/3 covered under Ex.A1 is also situated on the eastern side of the road. From Ex.B3, it is seen that S.No.141/3 is not far away from the place of acquired lands. The Principal Subordinate Judge was right in taking Ex.A1 – sale deed into consideration for enhancing the compensation. 12. S.No.141/3 covered under Ex.A1 is also situated on the eastern side of the road. From Ex.B3, it is seen that S.No.141/3 is not far away from the place of acquired lands. The Principal Subordinate Judge was right in taking Ex.A1 – sale deed into consideration for enhancing the compensation. 12. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that unlike Sec.18 of Land Acquisition Act, in Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, no evidence could be adduced and while so, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge erred in recording evidence and enhancing the compensation. Under Sec.9 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, any person who does not agree to the amount determined by the prescribed authority may prefer an appeal to the Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. When the Claimants raise the issue that factors to be taken into account in determining the amount of compensation was ignored, the Appellate Court before whom the appeal was filed could certainly record evidence to fix the compensation. Learned Special Government Pleader was not right in contending that the Appellate Court which entertains the appeals under Sec.9 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act cannot record evidence and such plea is not in consonance with the Scheme of the Act. 13. One of the substantial question of law formulated in S.A.No.114/2007 is regarding payment of Court Fee of Rs.5/- in Appeal by the Claimants instead of amount claimed as contemplated under Sec.51 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. Under Section 51 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, Court Fee payable on a Memorandum of Appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for acquisition of property for public purpose shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed in the appeal. By perusal of records, it is seen that Claimants have paid necessary Court Fees as contemplated under Section 51 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and therefore, this substantial question of law does not arise for consideration. 14. Determination of market value of acquired land depends upon the location of lands and potentiality for development to be taken into consideration. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. 14. Determination of market value of acquired land depends upon the location of lands and potentiality for development to be taken into consideration. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. The question whether the land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put. 15. Considering the question of market value, in (2009) 9 SCC 427 [Bhagat Singh v. Union of India], the Supreme Court held as under:- "8. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, amongst them, however, would be the price of land, amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act; in the absence of any such exemplars the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of number of fruit-bearing trees. 9. It is also well settled that for price determination purposes, the courts would be well advised to consider the positive and negative factors, as has been laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 , namely: 10. This Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1 on the question of determination of market value opined: "24. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor. 25. The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 26. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union of India was a party to the said awards would not by itself be a ground to invoke the principles of res judicata and/or estoppel. Despite such awards it may be open to the Union of India to question the entitlement of the respondent claimants to the amount of compensation and/or the statutory limitations in respect thereof. It would also be open to it to raise other contentions relying on or on the basis of other materials brought on record. It was also open to the appellant to contend that the lands under acquisition are not similar to the lands in respect whereof judgments have been delivered. The area of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property although such judgments/awards, if duly brought on record, as stated hereinbefore, would be admissible in evidence." 16. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that as per Ex.A1, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded flat rate enhancement of compensation of Rs.1500/-per cent without giving any deduction for development charges. It is well settled that taking into consideration of potentiality of the acquired lands for consideration, appropriate deduction has to be made towards development charges. 17. Observing that in fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development charges, in (1991) 4 SCC 506 [Bhagwathula Samanna and othersv. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality], the Supreme Court held as under:- In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. In the present cases the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters with the Town Planning Trust road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and having stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Therefore, the High Court erred in making a deduction of one third of the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10 per sq. yard to Rs.6.50 per sq. yard." .18. In (2003) 1 SCC 354 [Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana], the Supreme Court held as under:- ."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 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. 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%." .19. The question to be considered in the present case whether deduction by way of allowance is warranted. In this case the lands were acquired only for grant of house site pattas. 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%." .19. The question to be considered in the present case whether deduction by way of allowance is warranted. In this case the lands were acquired only for grant of house site pattas. The lands were acquired in 1999 and award was passed on 23. 1999. For all these years, the Claimants could not get the benefit of enhanced compensation. As per the interim order, Claimants could only withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation. As per Sec.12 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act interest for enhanced compensation was awarded only at 6%p.a. Having regard to the various factors, passage of time at this distant point of time, this Court is not inclined in making deduction for development charges. 20. Under Sec.12 of Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 6% p.a. is the prescribed rate of interest. Learned Subordinate judge awarded interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation amount. Insofar as solatium, learned Subordinate Judge awarded 9% interest on the solatium amount for the period from the date of acquisition to till the date of depositing the amount and the award of interest does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Based upon Ex.A1 sale deed and having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands, learned Principal Subordinate Judge rightly enhanced the compensation of Rs.356/- per cent to Rs.1500/-per cent. No justifiable grounds are made out in the Second Appeals and Revisions warranting interference. 21. In the result, the Decree and Judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in LA CMA.Nos.16 & 23/1999 and CMA Nos.14, 15, 17, 22 & 24/1999 dated 30.04.2003 respectively enhancing the compensation and award of interest and solatium are confirmed and the Second Appeals and Revisions are dismissed. Claimants-Respondents are entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited to the credit of LA CMA.Nos.16 & 23/1999 and CMA Nos.14, 15, 17, 22 & 24/1999 respectively on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tindivanam immediately on receipt of copy of this common Judgment. Any balance amount payable has to be deposited by the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Tindivanam within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit of balance amount, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw the balance amount so deposited. No costs.