Judgment :- G.M. AKBAR ALI,J., 1. The second appeals are arising out of a Common Judgment passed in civil miscellaneous appeal Nos 16 to 19 /2004. The Civil miscellaneous appeals arose out of order of the Special Tahsildar,( Adi Dravidar Welfare), Harur dated 24.1.2000. The Government had decided to acquire land to provide house site patta to the Adi Dravida People, living in Kottapatti village, Harur. The patta lands in S.No.90.2,90.3, 92.1A,92.1B totalling 8.06 acres were decided to be acquired. The Notification under Sec.3(1) and 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Welfare Act 1978 and Land Acquisition Act 31 of 1978 were issued and 4(1) Notification was published on 19.9.1999. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition conducted award enquiry and to fix the land value, 25 sales particulars were collected. On verification of various sales and also comparing the lands, the acquiring officer relied on the sale dated 28.5.1999 for the sale of S.No.55/1A and S.No.54/2 and fixed the value of the land at Rs.84,650/-per hectare. On the basis of the valuation, the acquiring officer had awarded compensation to the various land owners of the above lands acquired on the basis of their ownership and holding. 3. Dissatisfied with the fixing of the value at Rs.84,615/-per hectare, the claimants had preferred civil miscellaneous appeals before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri under CMA Nos.16 to 19 of 2004. The learned Sub Judge, Dharmapuri conducted a detailed enquiry and perused the data land relied on by the acquiring officer and also three sale deeds produced by the claimants for the survey numbers 127 and 136 and found that the data land is far away from the acquired land and the lands covered under the sale deeds produced by the claimants are very nearer and also they are house sites. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge, Dharmapuri fixed the value of the land at Rs.23.19 per sq.ft and had re-calculated the compensation and thereby enhanced the compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the enhancement, the State has preferred the present second appeals on various grounds, more particularly, on the ground that the the learned Sub Judge ought not to have relied on the sale deeds produced by the claimants under which lesser extent of house sites were sold at sq.ft. basis in a developed area and whereas, the acquired land is a larger extent which has to be developed. basis in a developed area and whereas, the acquired land is a larger extent which has to be developed. Therefore, the short question arises for consideration in these second appeals are whether the rate at which small plots are sold on the Sq.ft. Basis can be taken into consideration to fix the rate for the large area of acquisition. 5. Ms.Bhavani Subbarayan, the learned Special Government pleader (C.S.) would draw our attention to the comparison of the sale deeds by the learned Sub Judge with acquired land. The learned Special Government pleader pointed out that the sale deeds relied on by the claimants which are marked as Exs.C.1 to C.3 relate to S.No.127/2 and 136/2B1 under which lesser extent of land ranging from 577 sq.ft to 1500 sq.ft are sold on the basis of Rs.32.90, 29.85 and Rs.30/-per sq.ft respectively. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that 4(1) Notification was issued on 19.9.99 and the data sale deed was dated 28.5.99, immediately prior to the Notification under which a total extent of 0.65.0 hectares of dry land was sold at Rs.84,615 per hectare. The learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the soil classification (tharam), assessment of the data land and the acquired land are one and the same and therefore, the value fixed by the acquiring officer has to be confirmed. 6. On the contrary, Mr.S. Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the data land and the acquired land are not one and the same. The learned counsel pointed out that the data land is far away from the acquired land and whereas, the sale deeds relied on by the claimants, which was also accepted by the first appellate court relate to the land very nearer to the acquired lands. 7. The learned counsel pointed out the first appellate court had taken into consideration the lesser extent sold under this sale deeds and had deducted 25% for development charges. 8. The learned counsel also pointed out that the sale deeds relied on by the claimants are also immediately prior to the (4)(1) Notification and therefore, the first appellate court has rightly relied on those sale deeds and has fixed the correct market value of the date of Notification. 8. The learned counsel also pointed out that the sale deeds relied on by the claimants are also immediately prior to the (4)(1) Notification and therefore, the first appellate court has rightly relied on those sale deeds and has fixed the correct market value of the date of Notification. The learned counsel also pointed out that there is nothing wrong to fix the market value at square feet basis when the adjacent lands were sold on the same basis. 9. In support of her argument, learned Special Government pleader relied on the following judgments 10. In 2003 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer vs Nookala Rajamallu), the Supreme Court has held as follows: "11. The evidence on record shows that the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Obviously, their valuation would differ to a considerable extent from the land used for house sites. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land acquired for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price, the profits on the venture, etc., are to be made". 11. In 2009 11 SCC 164 ( Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others the Apex Court has held as follows: "9. 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" 12. In (1996) 3 SCC 129 (M.V.K. Gundarao vs Revenue Divisional officer (LAO), Narasaraopet, the Apex Court has held thus" "4. It is settled law that the burden is on the claimant to prove the prevailing market value as on the de of the Section 4(1) notification and it is the duty of the Court to assess the prevailing market value applying pragmatic tests. It is settled law that the burden is on the claimant to prove the prevailing market value as on the de of the Section 4(1) notification and it is the duty of the Court to assess the prevailing market value applying pragmatic tests. The Court has to consider the evidence in the proper perspective whether a willing vendee would prepare to purchase at the rates offered by the willing vendor in an open market when the lands are put to sale. It is the duty of the Court to sit on the armchair of a prudent purchaser acting under normal market conditions and to decide the prevailing prices as on the date of the notification". 13. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the following decisions: i) 1998 (2) SCC 385 (Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs L. Kamalamma) ii) 2003 (2) LW 241 (M. Muthuramalingam Pillai vs The Special Tahsildar and another) iii) 2003 (2) Supreme 893 (Ravinder Narain and Anr vs Union of India) iv) 2003 (6) Supreme 538 (Tejumal Bhojwani and ors vs State of U.P) v) 2005 (1) SCC 545 (Ahad Brothers vs State of M.P and another) vi) 2006 (12) SCC 87 (Deputy Director, Land Acquisition vs Malla Atchinaidu and others) vii) 2010 (5) MLJ 1 (National Highways Authority of India vs Marimuthu Gounder) viii) 2008 (2) SCC 568 (Atma Singh vs State of Haryana) ix) 2002(3) SCC 688 (Special land Acquisition Officer vs Mohd Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib) wherein the Courts have held that the rates fixed for smaller plots can be the basis for fixation of rate and however, necessary deduction has to be made towards developmental charges. 14. The learned counsel also relied on 2010 5 MLJ 1 (National Highways Authority of India vs Marimuthu Gounder), wherein one of us (Ms.R.Bhanumathi, J,) was a party, wherein, this Court held that prior to fixing the value of the land, the Court should have regard to the value and potentiality for development. 15. We have carefully considered the arguments and the materials on record. 15. We have carefully considered the arguments and the materials on record. In 2003 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer vs Nookala Rajamallu) (cited supra) and in 2008 1 SCC 554 Lucknow Devlopment Authority vs Krishnagopal Lahoti and in 2009 11 SCC 164 Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others (cited supra) the Apex Court has laid down the Principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales., which read as follows: "9. 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" 16. In 2003 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer vs Nookala Rajamallu) (cited supra) the Apex Court has held as follows: "6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to a few decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur vs Bhuban Chandra Dutta Prithvi Raj Taneja vs State of MP and Kausalya Devi Bogra vs Land Acquisition Officer 7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices". 17. It is also well settled that when the rates of the smaller plots are considered for the fixation of rate, where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, necessary deduction for the meagreness and also for the development charges have to be made. Such deduction and adjustment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. 17. It is also well settled that when the rates of the smaller plots are considered for the fixation of rate, where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, necessary deduction for the meagreness and also for the development charges have to be made. Such deduction and adjustment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. Coming to the facts of the present case, the acquiring officer had relied on a sale dated 28.5.1999 of Survey Nos.55/1A and 54/2, a total extent of 0.65.0 hectares which was sold at Rs.34,161/-per acre = Rs.84,615/-per hectare. This data land was rejected by the first appellate court on the sole basis that the data lands are far away from the acquired lands. Exs.R.3 is the sketch produced by the acquiring officer before the first appellate court. By perusal of Ex.R.3 sketch, it is seen that the data lands are situate on the north of the acquired lands, whereas the lands covered under Exs. C.1 to C.3 are nearer to the acquired lands. 19. From the evidence it is elicited that the lands covered under C.1 to C.3 are in the well developed residential area but the acquired lands are dry punja land and they are to be developed into house sites. 20. Indisputably, the lands sold under Exs. C.1 to C.3 are of lesser extent and were sold at sq.ft rate. That being so, the same rate can not be adopted for the larger extent. Necessary deduction has to be made for the meagreness. The first appellate court had taken into consideration of the sale price of all the three sale deeds and arrived at the average of the sale price at Rs.30.91. The court had deducted 25% towards developmental charges at Rs.7.72 and had arrived the market value of Rs.23.19. 21. In our considered view the market value fixed at Rs.23.19 per sq.ft cannot be applied to the acquired lands for the simple reason that the lands covered under Exs.C.1 to C.3 are in the residential areas, where as the acquired lands are dry punja lands. The first appellate court had deducted 25% as developmental charges, which we reduce to 20% In our considered view, a further deduction of 20% has to be made as those lands were smaller extent. Total deduction of 40% has to be made i.e., 20% towards developmental charges and 20% towards smaller extent taken. The first appellate court had deducted 25% as developmental charges, which we reduce to 20% In our considered view, a further deduction of 20% has to be made as those lands were smaller extent. Total deduction of 40% has to be made i.e., 20% towards developmental charges and 20% towards smaller extent taken. 22. Therefore, out of sale price of Rs.30.91 per sq.ft, 40% (20% + 20%) deduction at Rs.12.36 has to be made and thereby fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.18.55 per sq.ft. Which will be the just and reasonable market rate for the acquired lands. 23. The table of market value is as under: As per L.A.O Sub Court High Court Rs.34,161.00/per acre Rs.10,10,156.00 Rs. 8,08,780.00 Rs.84,610.00/per hectare Rs.24,92,595.00 Rs.19,97,686.00 24. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and the market rate is reduced to Rs.18.55 per sq.ft. The solatium, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri stands confirmed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected CMPs are closed.