Judgment :- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Government against the order passed in L.A.O.P.No.29 of 1993. 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The lands belonging to the respondents/claimants comprised in Survey No.T.S.Nos. L6/6-2B, L6/6-3B, L6/6-4B and L6/6-5B to an extent of 21. 598 hectares, situate at Vadiveeswaram Village, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, were acquired by virtue of Section 4(1) notification dated 26.09.1991 for the purpose of providing house sites to the Arunthatiyar. The Land Acquisition Officer relying upon document, dated 24-12-1990, determined the compensation of Rs.900/-per cent. Aggrieved by that, at the instance of the respondents/claimants, a reference was made to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked and no document was exhibited on behalf of the appellant herein. The Tribunal relying upon Exs.P1 to P3 determined the value of acquired land at Rs.15,000/-and awarded Rs.9,000/- per cent as compensation. The said award of the Tribunal is challenged before this Court by the Government. 3. Mr.M.RajaRajan, learned Government Advocate submitted that the value of the smaller extent of lands conveyed under Exs.P1 and Ex.P3 cannot be the basis for determining the value of the larger extent of land namely 21. 598 hectares. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Atma Singh(Died) through LRs and others -Vs-State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 , Administrator Genl of West Bengal -Vs-Collector, Varanasi reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 and H.P Housing Board -Vs- Bharat S.Negi and others reported in 2004 2 SCC 184 to contend the point that the value of the smaller extent of land cannot be the basis without appropriate reduction for determining the value of the vast extent of land. Consequently, he submitted that no deduction was given towards development and amenity charges by the Tribunal. Secondly, he submitted that the acquisition is for providing house sites to the Arunthatiyar. When the purpose is for providing house sites, naturally the Government has to leave sufficient lands for roads and other public amenities and in that event, more amount has to be spent for development charges. As, the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards amenity charges, Mr.M.RajaRajan, learned Government Advocate pleaded for more deduction towards development charges. 4. When the purpose is for providing house sites, naturally the Government has to leave sufficient lands for roads and other public amenities and in that event, more amount has to be spent for development charges. As, the Tribunal did not deduct any amount towards amenity charges, Mr.M.RajaRajan, learned Government Advocate pleaded for more deduction towards development charges. 4. On the other hand, Ms.Maria Rosaline, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the award of the Tribunal is based on the evidence especially on Exs.P1 to P3 and that, the Tribunal rightly determined the compensation and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. 5. Heard the rival contentions of the parties. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence and the award would show that the Section 4(1) notification was issued on 26-09-1991 and the acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites. It is seen that no document was exhibited by the Government to prove the value of the acquired land and no one was examined on its side. On the side of the claimants Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 26.09.1986 was exhibited. The said document relates to the property comprised in Survey No.L6/15/4 which is very close to the acquired land. Ex.P2 is the Commissioners Report filed in LAOP.Nos.83/85 and 87/92. Ex.P3 is Sale Deed dated 26-09-1986 and the land is also lying very near to the acquired land. Exs.P1 and P3 reflected the market value of the land as on 26-09-1986 at Rs.15,000/-per cent whereas, Section 4(1) notification is dated 26-09-1991. That would show that even before five years, the value of the land in that area is Rs.15,000/- per cent. 6. TheTribunal noted that the acquired land is situated abutting the road and it is comes under the Nagercoil Municipal jurisdiction. Therefore, the value of the acquired land would be more and it is proved that it is situated in the developed area. Even though based on Exs.P1 to P3, the Tribunal determined the value at Rs.15,000/- per cent, the Tribunal fixed the compensation only at Rs.9,000/-per cent. Even though, no reason has been given as to why the compensation has been determined at Rs.9,000/- per cent, it is deemed that the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.6,000/- per cent towards amenities. The deduction calculated comes about 40%. Therefore, the contention that no deduction has been made by the Tribunal, does not merit any consideration. Even though, no reason has been given as to why the compensation has been determined at Rs.9,000/- per cent, it is deemed that the Tribunal deducted a sum of Rs.6,000/- per cent towards amenities. The deduction calculated comes about 40%. Therefore, the contention that no deduction has been made by the Tribunal, does not merit any consideration. 7. In this case, what is crucial is, that Exs.P1 and P3 are dated 26-09-1986 whereas, Section 4(1) notification is dated 26-09-1991. It is common knowledge that is every year the value of the land is bound to appreciate. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti -Vs- Dipinkumar reported in 2004(2) SCC 283 and V.R.Venkatesalu and others -Vs-Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme-II, Coimbatore-18 and another reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 153 , every year 15% appreciation is taken into consideration. However, this Court awards 10% appreciation for every year and for five years 50% should be taken as appreciation. The value fixed by the Tribunal as per Exs.P1 to P3 =Rs.15,000.00 (+)50% appreciation =Rs. 7,500.00 ============= Rs.22,500.00 ============== The value as on 4(1)notification =Rs.22,500.00 On re-appreciation this Court fixes the market value of the land at Rs.22,500.00. 8. Exs.P1 and P3 are house sites and only a smaller extent of lands were conveyed. When smaller extent of land is conveyed, what is required is appropriate deduction towards amenity charges. The Honourable Supreme Court in Atma Singh(Died) through LRs and others -Vs- State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 , Administrator Genl of West Bengal -Vs-Collector, Varanasi reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 , in paragraph 6 of the judgment, held that smaller extent of land can be taken as guideline to determine the larger extent of land provided appropriate deduction is made towards development charges. In the above referred judgment the Honourable Supreme Court made deduction of 10% towards development charges considering location of the acquired land in the developed are. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court headed by His Lordship Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam in The Revenue Divisional Officer(Land Acquisition) Sivakasi and another -Vs-S.Algarswamy and others reported in (2001) 3 MLJ 366 , deducted only 10% towards development charges. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mummidi Apparav(D) through Lrs -Vs- Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited reported in 2008(72) AIC 58 deducted 50% towards development charges. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mummidi Apparav(D) through Lrs -Vs- Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited reported in 2008(72) AIC 58 deducted 50% towards development charges. Recently, a three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board etc.,-Vs-K.S.Gangadharappa & Another etc., reported in 2010 1 LW 1001, held that the deduction made towards development charges cannot be provided in any straight jacket formula and it may depend upon the facts of each case. 9. Therefore, it is clear that the deduction would vary depending upon the advantages, amenities available in the area where the acquired land is situated. In Mummidi Apparav(D) through Lrs -Vs-Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited reported in 2008(72) AIC 58, Ex.P2, Sale Deed which conveyed housing site was relied upon to determine the value of the larger extent of land. The Andhra Pradesh High Court deducted 50% from the value for development charges and the same was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in that case. In this case also Exs.P1 to P3 documents conveyed smaller extent of land. Therefore, this Court deducts 50% towards development charges. The value determined by this Court Rs.22,500/- Less:50% deduction Rs.11,250/- =========== Compensation payable to the claimant :Rs.11,250/- =========== 10. The award was passed on 23-11-2002, holding that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium. However, a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC 211 , held that the claimants are entitled to interest and solatium amount also. In view of that, the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium on par with the compensation. 11. The Compensation is re-determined based on available record invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the evidence available on record convinces this Court that the compensation requires to be enhanced, this Court cannot restrain itself from enhancing it on the ground that there is no appeal or cross-appeal by the claimants. It is to be noted that the acquisition itself is compulsory by the Government by “eminent domain” and it is not by consent of the claimants. Therefore, the interest of the claimant is required to be taken into consideration and the technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the right of the claimants. It is to be noted that the acquisition itself is compulsory by the Government by “eminent domain” and it is not by consent of the claimants. Therefore, the interest of the claimant is required to be taken into consideration and the technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the right of the claimants. Moreover, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court headed by His Lordship Justice P.Sathasivam, in Sub-Collector, Padnabhapuram -Vs- R.S.Raveendran reported in 2006 (2) LW 102 held that Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is applicable to the land acquisition proceedings and the appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and the said provisions are applicable to the appeals. Their Lordships relied upon the decisions in the Managing Director Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram -Vs-Sundari Ammal and fourth others reported in 1999 (II) CTC 560 and Annai Sathya Transport Corporation Ltd -Vs- Janardhanam reported in 2000(II) CTC 272 which relate to award of compensation in Motor Accident Claims cases and held that Order 41, Rule 33 CPC is clearly applicable to the land acquisition proceedings also. Therefore, even without appeal or cross appeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to award more compensation in the appeal filed by the Government provided the evidence on record convinces this Court to enhance the amount. 12. Therefore, in the appeal filed by the Government, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.9,000/-to Rs.11,250/- along with interest on solatium on par with compensation. For the enhanced amount, the claimants are required to pay the Court fees. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount as per order of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to pay the entire amount to the respondent/claimant. 13. Inview of that, the appeal is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.