Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.300/- per cent to Rs.3500/-per cent in respect of the lands acquired in Araneri village, Sriperumbudur Taluk for setting up an industrial complex by State Industries promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [SIPCOT], the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), SIPCOT, Unit-VII has filed these Appeals. Since, all the Appeals arise out of common Judgment, all the Appeals were taken up together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment. .2. Brief facts leading to the filing of Appeals are as follows:-The SIPCOT with an intent to fill up and boost the industrial activity in Tamil Nadu particularly near Chennai identified an extent of 9942. 5 Hectares of Patta and Poramboke lands in Mambakkam, Thirumangalam, Sirumangadu and Santhavelur village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District to locate an industrial complex and solicited the Government to accord sanction for the establishment of the same. The Government considered the proposal of SIPCOT, with several multinational companies, Non-resident Indians and local entrepreneurs evincing keen interest in Tamil Nadu, especially near Chennai and accorded administrative sanction in G.O.Ms.No.61, Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 for the acquisition of Patta lands measuring 2310.73 acres covering nine villages, invoking urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the Government Orders, SIPCOT has furnished the required requisition to the District Collector, Kancheepuram District. 3. By the Proceedings in Rc.No.159/96 B3 dated 03.09.1997, the District Revenue Officer [LA], SIPCOT, Sriperumbudur issued orders allocating an extent of 2310.73 acres to be acquired. Accordingly, an extent of 615. 5 Hectares in Pondur "A" village; 494. 5 Hectares in Araneri village and 173. 0 Hectares in Thirumangalam village totalling 1283. 0 Hectares were allotted to proceed with the acquisition. 4. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.61 Industries (MID-II) Department dated 24.02.1997 directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram District to proceed with the acquisition invoking the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(1) notification was published on 13. 1998 and also duly published in the newspaper. As the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act invoking Sec.17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Sec.5-A was dispensed with and Sec.6 declaration was published on 05.06.1998. 5. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) i.e. 13.03.1998, LAO collected sales statistics for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. 5. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) i.e. 13.03.1998, LAO collected sales statistics for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. There are 542 sales during the said period. Out of the said sale deeds, sale in respect of the Dry land in S.No.61 measuring an extent of 084. 5 Hectares [Document No.4978 dated 01.09.1997] was taken as data sale deed and LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.300/- per cent with 30% solatium. LAO has also ordered 12% additional market value for 833 days from 13. 1998 to 26. 2000 and passed the Award. 6. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Sec.18 of the Act was made. In the Reference Court, Claimant Paranthaman [Claimant in LAOP.No.33/2003] was examined as CW1. Exs.C1 to C18 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of Referring Officer, one Varalakshmi, Special Tahsildar [LA] was examined as RW1. On the side of Beneficiary, one Sridharan, Manager [Legal], SIPCOT was examined as RW2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. 7. Based upon Exs.C1 to C11-sale deeds, Reference Court held that market value of the acquired lands would fetch more value. Reference Court has not given any specific value, but on the basis of Exs.C1 to C11 and Exs.C13 and C14, took the view that the lands would fetch more value. Reference Court further held that though 33 – 1/3% is the normal deduction, the same is not a rigid formula and deduction purely depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Referring to AIR 2002 SC 1558 [Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib], Reference Court has deducted 20% for development charges and fixed the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. Referring to AIR 2002 SC 1558 [Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib], Reference Court has deducted 20% for development charges and fixed the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. After giving 20% deduction, Reference Court has passed:- (i) Value of one cent at the rate of Rs.300/- fixed by the Referring Officer was enhanced to Rs.3500/- per cent; (ii) 12% additional amount on the enhanced compensation from the date of 4(1) notification till the date of taking possession; (iii) 30% of solatium on the enhanced compensation; (iv) 9% interest for one year from the date of possession; (v) 15% interest per annum from the date of possession till the date of deposit of entire amount; and (vi) deduction of the amount of compensation already received by the Claimants. .8. Details of the Appeals, LAOP Nos., Survey Numbers of the lands acquired and the extent are as under:- .A.S.No. L.A.O.P.No. Survey Number Extent Sq. mt. / Hec. 735/2008 889/2003 61/2A11 00200 sq. mtr. 736/2008 890/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 737/2008 896/2003 61/20 00250 sq. mtr. 738/2008 897/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 739/2008 898/2003 61/2A1A 00230 sq. mtr. 740/2008 899/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 741/2008 900/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 742/2008 901/2003 61/2A17 00250 sq. mtr. 743/2008 902/2003 61/2A1A 00253 sq. mtr. 744/2008 903/2003 61/2A13 00200 sq. mtr. 745/2008 904/2003 61/2A8 00200 sq. mtr. 746/2008 905/2003 61/17 00200 sq. mtr. 747/2008 906/2003 61/2A9 00200 sq. mtr. 1097/2007 31/2003 61/2A3 0.02.0 Hec. 1098/2007 32/2003 61/2A5 0.02.0 Hec. 1099/2007 33/2003 80/1A 0.11.0 Hec. 1100/2007 125/2003 79/1 & 79/2 0.63.0 Hec. 1101/2007 271/2003 1/1A & 1/1B 0.54.0 Hec. 1102/2007 881/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 1103/2007 882/2003 61/2A1A 00222 sq. mtr. 1104/2007 883/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 1105/2007 884/2003 61/2A1A 00350 sq. mtr. 1106/2007 885/2003 61/2A1A 00223 sq. mtr. 1107/2007 886/2003 61/2A4 00200 sq. mtr. 1108/2007 887/2003 61/2A1A & 61/15 00467 sq. mtr. 1109/2007 888/2003 61/18 00200 sq. mtr. 1110/2007 246/2004 61/2A1A 00200 sq. mtr. 1111/2007 265/2004 61/9 00155 sq. mtr. 1112/2007 671/2004 22 0.47.5 Hec. .9. mtr. 1104/2007 883/2003 61/2A1A 00167 sq. mtr. 1105/2007 884/2003 61/2A1A 00350 sq. mtr. 1106/2007 885/2003 61/2A1A 00223 sq. mtr. 1107/2007 886/2003 61/2A4 00200 sq. mtr. 1108/2007 887/2003 61/2A1A & 61/15 00467 sq. mtr. 1109/2007 888/2003 61/18 00200 sq. mtr. 1110/2007 246/2004 61/2A1A 00200 sq. mtr. 1111/2007 265/2004 61/9 00155 sq. mtr. 1112/2007 671/2004 22 0.47.5 Hec. .9. Challenging the enhancement of compensation, Mr.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Appellant-Referring Officer submitted that LAO has taken the relevant sale deed pertaining to S.No.61 which is of the same taram and quality and has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.300/- per cent and while so, the Reference Court erred in relying Exs.C1 to C11 sale deeds and enhancing the compensation at Rs.3500/- per cent. It was further submitted that the documents filed by the Claimants – Exs.C1 to C11 do not refer to Araneri village but relate to Pondur and Mambakkam villages and Reference Court erred in taking those sale deeds with reference to some other village. It was further argued that in his evidence, RW2 has stated that huge amount was spent for development and while so, Reference Court erred in deducting only 20% for development charges. Drawing our attention to an unreported decision in A.S.Nos.80 to 104 of 2006 dated 012. 2009 [F.M.I.K.,J & T.S.S.,J], learned Special Government Pleader contended that in similar matters where the lands were acquired in Santhavelur for SIPCOT, the Division Bench has given 53% deduction for development charges and the same has to be adopted for development charges in these cases. 10. Mr.Devaraj, learned counsel for 2nd Respondent-SIPCOT contended that the deduction made by the Reference Court is very low. Drawing our attention to the evidence of RW2, it was contended that huge amount was spent for developing the lands and the same was not kept in view by the Reference Court. Reiterating the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader, learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent-SIPCOT also urged us to deduct 53% for development charges. 11. Drawing our attention to Exs.C1 to C11 sale deeds and sketch [Ex.R1], Mr.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the villages Mambakkam and Pondur are situated adjacent to Araneri village and Reference Court has rightly taken Exs.C1 to C11 as basis for arriving the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. 11. Drawing our attention to Exs.C1 to C11 sale deeds and sketch [Ex.R1], Mr.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the villages Mambakkam and Pondur are situated adjacent to Araneri village and Reference Court has rightly taken Exs.C1 to C11 as basis for arriving the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. It was further argued that Araneri village being located near Chennai-Bangalore National Highways, it would fetch higher value. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the oral evidence of RW2 that huge amount was spent for development remains uncorroborated and while so, 20% deduction made by the Reference Court is very reasonable. It was further argued that Exs.C1 to C11 documents are much prior to Sec.4(1) notification and if 10% annual increase is given to the value of the lands every year, the market value would be very much higher and the market value arrived at by the Reference Court is reasonable warranting no interference. 12. As pointed out earlier, 542 sales were collected for the period from 08.03.1995 to 13.03.1998. Out of the said sales, the sale in respect of house sites were mentioned in Annexure "A" and land sales were mentioned in Annexure "B". Annexure "A" sales which are house site sales were all discarded by the LAO from consideration. 325 sales found in Annexure "B" were discussed and the sale transaction were categorised under various heads viz., (i) wet land sales; (ii) house site sales; (iii) boosted sale value; (iv) difference of classification; (v) farm layout; (vi) combined sale; (vii) below the market value; (viii) far away sale; and (ix) poramboke land. 13. In so far as Dry lands, LAO took the view that real estate owners have boosted the value for forming plots. LAO has pointed out that in Araneri village, the Dry lands were sold between Rs.36/-to Rs.339/- per cent. Under document No.4978 dated 01.09.1997, an extent of 084. 5 Hectares in S.No.61 was sold at the rate of Rs.300/-per cent. The said sale deed dated 01.09.1997 was taken as data sale deed. 14. Principles for determination of market value:- For determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, market value therefor is to be ascertained. The expression market value has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in several cases. The said sale deed dated 01.09.1997 was taken as data sale deed. 14. Principles for determination of market value:- For determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, market value therefor is to be ascertained. The expression market value has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in several cases. Market value is the price that the willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities. In considering the market value the guiding factor would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the area of the land, nature thereof and advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property. That apart, potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. 15. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of market value and the amount of compensation. The positive as well as negative factors and potentiality of the land to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value. In (2005) 4 SCC 789 [Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat], the Supreme Court held as under:- "18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:- Positive factors Negative factors .(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area .(ii) proximity to a road distance (ii) situation in the interior at a from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth .(iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up .(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality .(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots,waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price. 16. In (2008) 2 SCC 568 [Atma Singh v. State of Haryana], the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that in considering the market value, the guiding factor would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor and willing purchaser and not an anxious dealing at arms length. 17. In (2009) 1 SCALE 545 [Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb], the positive as well as negative factors indicated in Viluben Jhalejar Contractors case (supra) as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus: "11. 17. In (2009) 1 SCALE 545 [Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb], the positive as well as negative factors indicated in Viluben Jhalejar Contractors case (supra) as factors germane for consideration for the purpose of determining the market value was reiterated thus: "11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road of highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land. 12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any 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 is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom. 13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra)." 18. Case of Appellant is that smaller extent of land was sold as plot/house site and the same cannot be taken as comparable instances. By perusal of Award, an extent of 084. 5 Hectares comprised in Dry S.No.61 was sold for Rs.300/- per cent. Case of Appellant is that smaller extent of land was sold as plot/house site and the same cannot be taken as comparable instances. By perusal of Award, an extent of 084. 5 Hectares comprised in Dry S.No.61 was sold for Rs.300/- per cent. LAO took the view that the data land and the acquired lands are of the same taram and quality. 19. Ex.R1 is the Eye valuation sketch. By perusal of Ex.R1, we find that S.No.61 is next adjacent on the eastern side of the acquired lands. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that S.No.61 is just near to the drainage kuttai [like a Pond] and far interior. In this regard, the evidence of CW1 reads as under:- “TAMIL” Existence of kuttai is also evident from Ex.R1. According to the Appellant, the village Mambakkam is situated on the north-western side and village Pondur is also situated on the northern side of the acquired lands in Araneri village and the acquired lands are situated about 1½ K.M. from National Highways and the market value fixed by the LAO is very reasonable. 20. In the Award, LAO has observed that even in the sales statistics, the lands were sold for higher value and LAO has discarded those sale deeds in which Dry lands were sold for higher value on the ground that Dry lands were purchased by the real estate owners on boosted value for forming plots and that the boosted value cannot be taken as basis for fixing the market value. It is seen from the evidence that nearby area of acquired lands in Araneri village was sold as house plots. Opinion of LAO that the Dry lands were purchased by the real estate owners on boosted value for forming plots and the value was boosted is not convincing. 21. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that the acquired lands are situated near Chennai-Bangalore National Highways. In his evidence, CW1 has stated that even in 1998, M/s.Proxy Air Private Limited has taken the nearby lands on long term lease of Rs.14,000/- per cent. In his evidence CW1 has stated that the land has got potential for development and that it has got bus facilities. CW1 has further stated that the bus proceeding from Poonamallee to Sunguvarchatram would proceed via Araneri. In this regard, evidence of CW1 reads as under:- “TAMIL” 22. In his evidence CW1 has stated that the land has got potential for development and that it has got bus facilities. CW1 has further stated that the bus proceeding from Poonamallee to Sunguvarchatram would proceed via Araneri. In this regard, evidence of CW1 reads as under:- “TAMIL” 22. To substantiate their claim that nearby lands are developed, Claimants have produced Ex.C13 in which layout was formed in S.Nos.61/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of Araneri village. From Ex.C14, it is seen that in S.Nos.275, 276, 278 and 282 of Araneri village layout was formed. The oral evidence of CW1 and documentary evidence from Exs.C13 and C14 would establish that the surrounding area is developed and the acquired lands having potential for future development. The acquired lands being situated about 1 – 1½ K.M. from Chennai-Bangalore National Highway, have great potential for future development. 23. In his evidence, RW1 has also admitted that the acquired lands are situated at about 1½ K.M. from Chennai-Bangalore National Highway. RW1 has also admitted that factories and companies have come up in the surrounding area of the acquired lands in Araneri village. In his evidence, RW1 has stated @38 “TAMIL” Thus from the oral evidence of RW1, it is clearly brought out that factories and companies have come up and nearby area are developed. Admittedly, acquired lands are situated nearby National Highways having good access to main roads have got great potential for development. 24. Coming to the documentary evidence, the Claimants have produced Exs.C1 to C11. The details of Exs.C1 to C11 are as follows:- Exhibits No. S.No. and Extent Sale Value in Rupees Per cent/sq.ft. value in Rupees Ex.C1 dt. 11.04.1997 S.No.9/1D 0.48 cent Pondur village Rs.2,88,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C2 dt.30.09.1997 S.No.533/5A4 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.21,600/- Rs.5244/- per cent Ex.C3 dt.112. 1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C4 dt.112. 1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C5 dt. 16.07.1997 S.No.535/5B 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.18,000/- Rs.4360/- per cent Ex.C6 dt.110. 1996 S.No.165/1 1.0.62 cents Mambakkam village Rs.3,72,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C7 dt.110. 1996 S.No.165/1 82. 5 cents Mambakkam village Rs.4,95,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C8 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 0.10 cents Mambakkam village Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent Ex.C9 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 1.0.10 cents Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent Ex.C10 dt. 112. 1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C11 dt. 1996 S.No.165/1 1.0.62 cents Mambakkam village Rs.3,72,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C7 dt.110. 1996 S.No.165/1 82. 5 cents Mambakkam village Rs.4,95,000/- Rs.6000/- per cent Ex.C8 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 0.10 cents Mambakkam village Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent Ex.C9 dt. 10.01.1996 S.No.179/1 1.0.10 cents Rs.58,860/- Rs.5886/- per cent Ex.C10 dt. 112. 1996 S.No.537/1 1800 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.20,000/- Rs.4845/- per cent Ex.C11 dt. 26.05.1997 S.No.533/5A & 6 1900 sq.ft. Pondur village Rs.21,600/- Rs.5244/- per cent Referring to Exs.C1 to C11 and after giving 20% deduction and also referring to number of decisions, Reference Court has fixed the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. Ofcourse, Reference Court has not specifically indicated what was the value fixed as market value. 25. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that Exs.C1 to C5, C10 and C11 refer to Pondur village and Exs.C6 to C9 refers to Mambakkam village and Exs.C1 to C11 cannot form basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands in Araneri village. Main contention of learned Special Government Pleader is that no documents relating to Araneri village was produced and while so, Reference Court erred in taking Exs.C1 to C11 as comparable sale deeds and fixing the market value at Rs.3500/- per cent. It was further contended that Exs.C2 to C5 and C8 to C11 are smaller extent and the value of those smaller extent cannot form basis for determining the market value when large extent of lands were acquired. 26. When considering the evidence of CW1 and RWs.1 and 2 and Ex.R1-Eye valuation sketch, we find that Pondur village is on the northern side of acquired lands and Mambakkam village is on the north-western side of the acquired lands. In his evidence, RW1 has stated that the lands in Mambakkam, Araneri and Pondur are of same the taram and quality as is seen from the following evidence “TAMIL” It is abundantly clear from the evidence of RW1 that the lands in Mambakkam and Pondur are of the same taram and quality of the lands acquired in Araneri village. From Ex.R1, it is evident that Mambakkam and Pondur villages are just adjacent to the acquired lands in Araneri village being situated on the northern side and north-western side and northern side respectively. 27. On the eastern side of the acquired lands is S.Nos.61/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of Araneri village. From Ex.C13 layout, it is seen that layout was formed in S.Nos. 27. On the eastern side of the acquired lands is S.Nos.61/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of Araneri village. From Ex.C13 layout, it is seen that layout was formed in S.Nos. 61/2A, 2B, 2C and 2D even prior to the publication of 4(1) notification. Like wise, from Ex.C14, it is seen that in S.Nos.275, 276, 278 and 282 layouts were formed. From Exs.C13 and C14, Claimants have established that the adjacent lands in Araneri village have been developed by forming layout. Even though, document relating to Araneri village was not filed, having regard to the admission of RW1, it cannot be contended that sale deeds of Mambakkam and Pondur villages ought not to have been taken as comparable instances. 28. As discussed earlier, villages Mambakkam and Pondur are on the north-western side and on northern side next adjacent to the acquired lands in Araneri village. Exs.C1 to C11 are the sale deeds of the year 1996-1997 and 1998. Considering the essentials for constituting the comparable sale, in AIR 2008 SC 399 [Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "18. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: .(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); .(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 19. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case [See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T.Adinarayanan Setty ( AIR 1959 SC 429 )] 20. These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India ( 2003 (4) SCC 481 ). Applying the ratio of the above decision, in our considered view, Exs.C1 to C11 having proximity from the situation angle and proximity from the time angle, Reference Court has rightly taken Exs.C1 to C11 as comparable instances. 29. As pointed out earlier, Reference Court has not exactly fixed the market value, but after giving 20% deduction, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.3500/- per cent. By perusal of Exs.C3, C4 and C10, 1800 sq.ft. 29. As pointed out earlier, Reference Court has not exactly fixed the market value, but after giving 20% deduction, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.3500/- per cent. By perusal of Exs.C3, C4 and C10, 1800 sq.ft. in Pondur village was sold for Rs.20,000/- which means per cent value Rs.4845/-. If 20% deduction is given for development charges, the value comes to Rs.3875/-per cent. That apart, if we take the average of all the sale deeds [Exs.C1 to C11], the average value would be Rs.5350/- per cent. Even if we give 33 – 1/3% deduction i.e. Rs.1765/-, the market value would be Rs.3585/-. Viewed from any angle, the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.3500/- per cent is reasonable and cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. 30. Deduction towards development charges:- Placing reliance upon (2009) 5 MLJ 2 [Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode, Erode District v. Jaganathan Gounder and another], learned Special Government Pleader contended that 40% deduction should be made towards development cost and 20% on account of small size of plot taken as basis to arrive at the market value. Placing reliance upon an unreported decision in A.S.Nos.80 to 104 of 2006 [F.M.I.K.,J & T.S.S.,J], learned Special Government Pleader submitted that when barren lands are acquired and extensive development is required for which maximum development charges should be deducted from such value. It was further contended that for the acquired lands in Santhavelur village by the SIPCOT, the Division Bench has given 53% deduction for development charges and the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for SIPCOT have urged us to adopt 53% deduction towards development charges for the acquired lands in Araneri village. 31. While fixing the market value, necessary deduction are to be made towards development charges. In such cases, the LAO must record reasons about the disadvantage of the land acquired and the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired as well as the percentage of land necessary for providing developments like provision of roads, electricity, water and sewerage and other facilities. The extent of deduction cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Supreme Court had time and again indicated the factors to be considered by the LAO for making deduction towards development charges as well as percentage of deduction. The extent of deduction cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Supreme Court had time and again indicated the factors to be considered by the LAO for making deduction towards development charges as well as percentage of deduction. Such deduction is also not automatic unless there is a factual finding that deduction was absolutely necessary in the facts of the case by taking into consideration the ground situation. In case the property has already been developed, there would be no requirement of deduction towards development. 32. The Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC)] referred to an earlier decision relating to deduction towards development charges, in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1991 SC 2298 : (1991) 4 SCC 506 : (1992) 1 MLJ 9 , wherein it was held as follows:- "9. ..... 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. 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." 33. The principle of deduction was elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in (2009) 8 SCC 979 [Subh Ram and others v. Haryana State and another]. Referring to various decisions, the Supreme Court held as under:-"2. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 : 1988 (3) SCC 751 , this Court held: " ..... a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an enterpreneur. a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an enterpreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately, between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will, to some extent – also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards." It should be noted that deduction of 20% to 50% referred to therein is only in regard to the land to be earmarked for roads, community areas, etc. and does not refer to the further deduction towards the expenses of development. 3. In K.S.Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1966 SC 2886 : 1996 (2) SCC 62 , this Court held: "It is then contended that 54% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33 – 1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33 – 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court was not illegal." .34. Deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be held in a straitjacket formula and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, in AIR 2008 SC 399 [Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "22. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civil amenities etc. However, in cases of some 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 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. 35. It emerges from the above decisions while comparing the value of developed lands with that of undeveloped lands, the Court has to make suitable deductions towards the cost of development. The consistent view taken by the Supreme Court is to adopt deduction of 20% - 50% for development charges. 36. 35. It emerges from the above decisions while comparing the value of developed lands with that of undeveloped lands, the Court has to make suitable deductions towards the cost of development. The consistent view taken by the Supreme Court is to adopt deduction of 20% - 50% for development charges. 36. Holding that at least 1/3rd of the land acquired is to be set apart for road purpose, developmental purpose and other civic amenities, in (1996) 2 SCC 538 [Special Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T.Velu], the Supreme Court held as under:- "The mere fact that there is a connecting road to the lands by itself is not a correct principle of law in refusing to deduct towards developmental charges" 37. Similarly, in (1996) 3 SCC 124 [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.], the Supreme Court held as under:- "Therefore, it should be determined only on the basis of yardage. If the principle of determination of compensation on yardage basis is adopted, it is equally settled law that at least 1/3rd of the land required should be deducted towards developmental purposes, namely, providing roads, electricity, drainage facilities and other betterment developments." 38. In his evidence, RW2 has stated that after the acquisition, SIPCOT has developed the acquired lands by forming roads, electricity lines, water facilities and communications so as to set up multinational and national companies by spending Rs.80 crores to Rs.90 crores. Laying emphasis upon the evidence of RW2, it was contended that huge amount of nearly Rs.90 Crores was spent towards development charges and 20% deduction given by the Reference Court is very low and having regard to the huge amount spent for development, deduction ought to have been more. Even though, RW2 has stated that huge amount of Rs.80 crores to Rs.90 crores was spent for development charges, his evidence remains uncorroborated. .39. In the light of the above submissions, next point falling for our consideration is whether Reference Court was justified in deducting 20% for development charges. In the present case, lands have not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. Lands were acquired by the SIPCOT for allotment of lands for setting up industries of multinational, national companies and other industrial establishments. Once the area is developed as industrial park and allotment is made, it would earn more profit. In the present case, lands have not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. Lands were acquired by the SIPCOT for allotment of lands for setting up industries of multinational, national companies and other industrial establishments. Once the area is developed as industrial park and allotment is made, it would earn more profit. The Appellant lays emphais upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein Court has adopted 53% deduction for taking smaller extent as comparable instance and for development charges. In the instant case, the lands are acquired in Araneri village which is situated about 1½ K.M. from Chennai-Bangalore National Highways. In the said case before the Division Bench, even Reference Court has adopted 40% deduction for development charges and fixed the market value at Rs.4000/- per cent and therefore, Division Bench adopted 53% for development charges. While so, the view taken by the Division Bench adopting 53% deduction cannot be applied to the case on hand. .40. Holding that the land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory and sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-products in the same process and the profit from a sugar factory is substantial, in (2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC) [Atma Singh (died) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another], the Supreme Court held as under:- "14. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-product in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all, the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless, where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration." .In the said case, the Supreme Court held that deduction of 10% from the market value of the land which has been arrived at by the High Court would meet the ends of justice. .41. In the instant case, the acquired lands have potential for future development and since the acquired lands are nearby developed area, in our considered view, 20% deduction for development charges given by the Reference Court is reasonable. As we pointed out earlier, as per Exs.C1 to C11, the average value would come to Rs.5350/- per cent. .41. In the instant case, the acquired lands have potential for future development and since the acquired lands are nearby developed area, in our considered view, 20% deduction for development charges given by the Reference Court is reasonable. As we pointed out earlier, as per Exs.C1 to C11, the average value would come to Rs.5350/- per cent. If we give 33 – 1/3% i.e. Rs.1765/- for deduction, the value would be Rs.3585/-and the Reference Court has fixed the market value only at Rs.3500/- per cent. Viewing from any angle, the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.3500/- per cent is reasonable warranting no interference. 42. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly enhanced the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.300/- to Rs.3500/- per cent. No justifiable grounds are made out in these Appeals warranting interference. 43. Inthe result, the enhancement made by the Reference Court is confirmed. In so far as, 12% additional market value for 833 days [13. 98 to 26. 2000]; 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year period [26. 2000 to 26. 2001] and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. thereafter till the date of deposit being in accordance with law, the same are also confirmed and all these appeals are dismissed. It was stated before us in some of the LAOPs where smaller extent up to 10 cents of land acquired, 50% of the enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereon was deposited and in some of the LAOPs where the acquisition is more than 10 cents, 40% of the enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereon was deposited and in some of the cases, enhanced compensation is yet to be deposited. Appellant is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount along with the accrued interest in those of the LAOPs where 50% and 40% of enhanced compensation was already deposited. In those of the LAOPs where enhanced compensation amount was not deposited, Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. The enhanced compensation amount to be deposited shall be deposited to the credit of respective LAOPs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. The enhanced compensation amount to be deposited shall be deposited to the credit of respective LAOPs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the Claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. The learned Special Government Pleader and learned counsel for SIPCOT shall be entitled to separate fees in each of the Appeals. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Appeal.