Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been preferred by the Government against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.45 of 2000, dated 20-12-2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,Sivakasi. 2.The facts of the case, are as follows: The land measuring about 14. 0 hectares comprised in Survey No.536/2 situate at Maraneri Revenue Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, was acquired as per Section 4(1) notification dated 04-04-1991, for the purpose of providing house sites for Adi Dravidars. The Land Acquisition Officer relying upon Item No.51 of the sale statistics under Ex.R1, determined the value of the land and awarded the compensation at Rs.102/- per cent. 3. Aggrieved by that, a reference to the civil Court was made at the instance of the claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Tribunal, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the claimants and RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the respondents. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record, the Tribunal relying upon the Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 19-05-1988, determined the value of the acquired land at Rs.1,308/- and awarded compensation Rs.870/- per cent. The said award of the Tribunal is being challenged by the Government in this appeal. 4. Mr.M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the value of the smaller extent of land cannot form basis for determination of value of vast track of land. In this case, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that through Ex.P1, only three cents were conveyed, whereas, the acquired land measured about 14. 0 hectares and therefore, Ex.P1 cannot be the basis for determination of value of the acquired land. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the following judgements in this regard: 1) Collector of Lakhimpur -Vs- Bhupan Chandra Datta reported in AIR 1971 SC 2015 2) Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by Lrs -Vs-State of Madya Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1560 3) Smt.Kausalya Devi Bogra and others -Vs-Land Acquisition Officer, Avurangabad and another reported in AIR 1984 SC 892 4) Suresh Kumar -Vs- Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal reported in 1989 (2)SCC 329 5. Secondly, Mr.Rajarajan, pointed out that the acquisition is for providing house sites for Adi Dravidar. Secondly, Mr.Rajarajan, pointed out that the acquisition is for providing house sites for Adi Dravidar. As per Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, only 15% of the market value would be the solatium, whereas, the Tribunal awarded 30% as solatium and therefore, he sought for interference in the award. 6. Mr.N.Vijayaraj, learned Counsel for the Respondents/claimants submitted that there is no prohibition to rely upon the value of the smaller extent of land and what is required is only appropriate deduction. He pleaded for confirmation of the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. In this case Section 4(1) notification was issued on 04-04-1991 and the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The acquired land was found to be located in a well developed area. The Tribunal after relying upon the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1, in paragraphs 8 9 and 10 of the award, concluded that the acquired land is situated in the developed area. The acquired land is comprised in Survey No.536/2. Ex.R3 topo plan would show that Ex.P1 land is situated very near and closer to the acquired land. Therefore, the nature and potentiality of land as per Ex.P1 and the acquired land, are one and the same. 8. RW.1 admitted that there is enormous development beyond Sivakasi town and he further admitted that the Maraneri village where the acquired land is situated, is about four kilometres away from Sivakasi town. The Tribunal also relied upon evidence of RW.1 with regard to non-denial of development taking place surrounding the acquired land. The purpose of acquisition is to provide housing site and only when the land is suitable for housing, the lands are acquired for housing schemes. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the acquired land has got potentiality to become house sites and also it is situated in a developed area with many amenities. 9. It is a well known fact that Sivakasi is known for printing and fire works and therefore, there cannot be any second opinion with regard to speedy development of the town beyond ten kilometres. As per the Government policy, the industries are prohibited inside the town and therefore, those industries have to necessarily be located outside of the town where the acquired land is situated. 10. As per the Government policy, the industries are prohibited inside the town and therefore, those industries have to necessarily be located outside of the town where the acquired land is situated. 10. The Tribunal relied upon Ex.P1 dated 19.05.1988 and determined the value at Rs.1,308/-and after deducting 33%, it determined the compensation at Rs.872/-. The Tribunal did not take into consideration the interregnum period between the execution of Ex.P1 Sale Deed dated 19-05-1988 and Section 4(1)notification dated 04-04-1991. The interregnum period is three years. It is a common knowledge that every year the value of the land is bound to increase and especially, in suburban of Sivakasi it is bound to increase more. The Honourable Supreme Court in Krishi Udpadan Mandi Samiti -Vs- Dipinkumar reported in 2004(2) SCC 283 and a Division Bench of this Court in V.R.Venkatesalu and others -Vs-Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme-II, Coimbatore-18 and another reported in 2010 (2) MLJ 153 have held that 15% would the appreciation in the value every year. However, this Court adds 10% appreciation of every year. The Value as per Ex.P1 dated 19-05-1988 =Rs.1,308.00 Add:10% appreciation for each year(3 years) =Rs. 260.00 ============ =Rs.1,568.00 ============ Hence, this Court determines the value of the acquired land at Rs.1,568/-. 11. As far as deduction is concerned, the Tribunal deducted 33% from the value of Ex.P1 and determined the compensation at Rs.872/-per cent. Though the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the value of the smaller extent of land cannot be taken into consideration for determining the value of larger track of land, the Honourable Supreme Court in Atma Singh(Died) through Lrs -Vs- State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 held that there is no prohibition for relying upon the value of the smaller extent of land to determine the value of vast extent of land and what was required is, suitable and appropriate deduction towards amenities and development charges. 12. Though there is no unanimity among the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court with regard to deduction, 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 deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be provided by in straight jacket formula and it would depend upon the facts of each case. In this case, the purpose is to provide house sites for Adi Dravidars. The Honourable Supreme Court in Basant Kumar -Vs-Union of India and others reported in 1996 (11) SCC 542 , K.Vasundara Devi -Vs-The Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO) reported in 1995 (5) SCC 426 and Himachal Pradesh Housing Board -Vs-Bharat S.Negi reported in 2004(2) SCC 184 deducted 30% towards development charges when the land was acquired for the housing sites. Therefore, the deduction made by the Tribunal to an extent of 33% cannot be found fault with. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the acquisition is for providing house sites to the Adi Dravidar and the acquisition is covered by Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: Section 7:Determination of Amount:-(1)The amount payable in respect of any land acquired under this Act shall be the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice under sub-section(1) of Section 4. (2) In addition to the market value of the land as provided above, the prescribed authority shall, in every case, award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value as solatium in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. (3)The prescribed authority shall, after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner, determine, by order, the amount payable under sub-section (1). A copy of the said order shall be communicated to the owner of such land and every person interested therein. 14. Under Section 7(2) of the Act, the solatium is awarded only 15%, whereas, the Tribunal awarded 30%. Therefore, it is required to be reduced to 15%. The Value per cent determined by this Court is :Rs.1,568.00 Less: Solatium @ 15% :Rs. 235.20 ============ Rs.1,332.80 ============ So, the compensation payable per cent is Rs.1,332.80/-. 15. Though the Government is aggrieved against awarding Rs.872/- per cent, on re-appreciation of evidence, this Court enhances the compensation to Rs.1,332.80 by invoking Order 41, Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Sub-Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Thakkalai Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District -Vs-R.S.Raveendran reported in 2006(2) LW 102 held that the compensation can be enhanced even in the appeal filed by the Government, by invoking under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC and making a reference under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Sub-Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Thakkalai Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District -Vs-R.S.Raveendran reported in 2006(2) LW 102 held that the compensation can be enhanced even in the appeal filed by the Government, by invoking under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC and making a reference under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16. In view of that, in the appeal filed by the Government the compensation is enhanced from Rs.872/- per cent to Rs.1,332.80 per cent, which is rounded off to Rs.1,300/- per cent. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.