Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Being aggrieved by the enhanced of compensation to Rs.3000/- per cent from Rs.60,000/- per acre the Government has preferred this appeal. 2. On requisition from Housing Board, Coimbatore for providing Housing in Thudiyalur, Coimbatore, an extent of 10.29.5 hectre in Survey No.523/1 and other Survey Numbers were acquired. Section 4 (1) Notification was published in G.O.Ms.No.862 dated 27.05.1991 and Section 5 (A) enquiry was conducted on 19.09.1991. Section 6 Notification was published in the Gazette No.327, Housing and Urban Development, dated 15.06.1992 and published in the local Gazette on 24.06.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 23.06.1994 and he collected the sales statistics (Ex.R-2). The Land Acquisition Officer has taken datas land as Survey No.518/1, in which, two acres was sold in Document No.1458/91 (Data No.13.03.1991) for Rs.1,20,000/-. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken the value as per acre and passed the award on 23.06.1994 and an extent of 613 acres was acquired from the claimants. On the objections raised by the claimant Kaliyammal, Section 18 reference was made. Before the Referral Court, claimants have filed Exs.C-1 to C-4 various sale deeds as comparable sales. The Court has taken the average value of the lands as per Exs.C-1 to C-4 and taken the average as Rs.3054/- per cent and fixed the market value at Rs.3000/- per centand awarding 30% solatium and has enhanced the compensation to Rs.23,90,700/-. The Tribunal has also awarded additional amount of 12% interest and also ordered interest at the rate of 9% per year and thereafter 15% per annum. 4. Challenging the enhancement Mr.V.Ravi, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Court below erred in taking Exs.A-2 and A-4 for arriving at the market value which are subsequent to 4(1) Notification. It was further contended that the method adopted by the Court below in taking the value of the lands as per Exs.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter arriving at the average and the compensation enhanced to Rs.3000/-per cent is very much on the higher side. 5. We have heard Mr.E.Sampathkumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. It was further contended that the method adopted by the Court below in taking the value of the lands as per Exs.C-1 to C-4 and thereafter arriving at the average and the compensation enhanced to Rs.3000/-per cent is very much on the higher side. 5. We have heard Mr.E.Sampathkumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Drawing our attention to the evidence of CW-1 and RW-1, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the acquired lands are in the midst of developed area and the Court below has rightly taken into account that the acquired lands are surrounded by various industries and educational institutions and keeping in view the future potential of the land, the Court below has rightly taken into account the value in Exs.C-1 to C-4 and arrived at the average in fixing the market value. It was further submitted that in Ex.A-1 sale deed dated 26.09.1991, the market value of 5 cents has been stated as Rs.25,732/- i.e. per cent Rs.4288/-and while so the market value fixed by the Court at Rs.3000/- is very much on the lower side and the learned counsel for the claimants prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken the data land as Survey No.518/1 and opined that it is of the same tharam and value as that of the acquired lands in Survey No.523/1. As from Ex.R-4 sale deed dated 11.03.1991 in Survey No.518/1 two acres was sold for Rs.1,20,000/-. Taking Ex.R-4 as the data sale deed, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the value per acre at Rs.60,000/-. By perusal of Ex.R-2 it is seen that in Serial No.36 and an extent of 731/2 cents was sold for Rs.1,47,000/-as pointed out by the Court below. We find that the lands which were sold for higher rate were not taken into account by the Land Acquisition Officer, which he was required to do. 7. The claimants have produced Exs.A-1 to A-4, the details of which are as under:- Exhibits and Dates Details Per Cent Value Ex.C-1 / 02.09.1991 5 cents 210sqft. sold for Rs.14,300/-2860 Ex.C-2 / 26.09.1991 5 cents sold for Rs.25,732/-4288 Ex.C-3 / 14.06.1990 731/2 cents sold for Rs.1,47,000/-2014 Ex.C-4 / 02.09.1991 5 cents sold for Rs.14,300/- 2860 Average of Exs.C-1 to C-4 3054 Rounded to 3000 8. Exs.C-2 and C-4 are dated 26.09.1991 and 02.09.1991 respectively. sold for Rs.14,300/-2860 Ex.C-2 / 26.09.1991 5 cents sold for Rs.25,732/-4288 Ex.C-3 / 14.06.1990 731/2 cents sold for Rs.1,47,000/-2014 Ex.C-4 / 02.09.1991 5 cents sold for Rs.14,300/- 2860 Average of Exs.C-1 to C-4 3054 Rounded to 3000 8. Exs.C-2 and C-4 are dated 26.09.1991 and 02.09.1991 respectively. The sale deeds Exs.C-2 and C-4 are obviously subsequent to 4(1) Notification dated 27.05.1991. It is fairly well settled that the sale deeds subsequent to 4(1) Notification cannot be taken into account for fixing the market value, unless the claimants show that there are no other contemporaneous documents of the relevant date of publication of Section 4(1) Notice.Evidently by a perusal of Ex.R-2 sales statistics, it is seen that there are number of sales transactions in and around the lands acquired, while so, in our considered opinion the Court below was not right in taking into account Ex.C-2 dated 26.09.1991 and Ex.C-4 dated 02.09.1991 sale deeds for fixing the market value. In our considered view, the Court below ought not to have taken into account Exs.C-2 (dated 26.09.1991) and C-4 (dated 02.09.1991) to arrive at the average and fixing the market value at Rs.3000/-. 9. Of the documents filed by the claimants, only Ex.C-3 dated 04.06.1990 is prior to Section 4(1) Notification under Ex.C-3, 731/2cents was sold for Rs.1,47,000/-which means Rs.2014/- per cent Ex.C-3 document being one year prior to Section 4(1) Notification and by giving 10% increase the value per cent is Rs.2250/- 10. In fixing the market value, the Court will have to take into consideration the potential of the acquired lands for future developed and the location of the lands in the developed area and its nearness to the highways or Municipality and such other positive factors. By perusal of evidence of CW-1, it is seen that the acquired lands are in the municipality limits of Vellakenar. In its evidence, PW-1 has stated that several spinning mills, factoriesand colleges were situated nearby the acquired lands.He has also stated that Vellakenar is just adjacent on the northern side of Coimbatore Corporation. It is also seen from the evidence of CW-1 that the Mettupalayam road proceeds through Vellakenar and that there are roads connecting Sathyamangalam and Mettupalayam. CW-1 has further stated that there are several other residential area around the acquired lands and there is a private hospital by name V.G.Hospital is also situated nearby. It is also seen from the evidence of CW-1 that the Mettupalayam road proceeds through Vellakenar and that there are roads connecting Sathyamangalam and Mettupalayam. CW-1 has further stated that there are several other residential area around the acquired lands and there is a private hospital by name V.G.Hospital is also situated nearby. In his evidence RW-1 also would admit that the acquired lands are within the Vellakenar Municipality limits. RW-1 has also admitted that there are two spinning mills and Kongunaadu Arts College nearby the acquired lands. Upon a consideration of oral evidence of CW-1 and RW-1, we are of the view that the acquired lands has potentials for future development. Hence taking into account that the acquired lands are in the midst of developed area and having well connectivity to Mettupalayam road to Sathamangalam and the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.2500/- percent. 11. While fixing the market value, the development charges have to be deducted depending upon the nature of the land. While giving such deduction, the Court will have to take into account the comparable sale deed which was taken for comparison. As held by the Supreme Court in (2005) 4 SCC 789 [VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT] normally 1/3rd deduction has to be given but in this case Ex.C-3 sale deed (dated 14.06.1990) pertaining to an agriculture land of a large extent of 731/2 cents was sold for Rs.1,47,000/- which we have taken as comparable sale deed. When the sale deed in which large extent of agriculture land was sold has been taken as a comparable sale deed, in our considered view no deduction need be made for development charges. It is also seen that even the data sale deed relied by the appellant also is an agricultural land and that is the reason why even the appellant has not made any deduction towards the developmental charges. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the locality of the acquired lands, no deduction need be made. 12. In so far as the solatium is concerned, the Court below has awarded 30% solatium and also awarded 12% market value as additional amount, the interest by the Court below 9% for one year and thereafter 15% for each year is also in order of the Land Acquisition Act warranting no interference. 13. 12. In so far as the solatium is concerned, the Court below has awarded 30% solatium and also awarded 12% market value as additional amount, the interest by the Court below 9% for one year and thereafter 15% for each year is also in order of the Land Acquisition Act warranting no interference. 13. The market value of the acquired lands in Survey No.531 is reduced to Rs.2500/-per cent. The total compensation for 613 cents is arrived at Rs.15,32,500/-. The said amount is payable with 30% solatium and the interest as ordered by the Court below. 14. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with the solatium with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the respective share of the compensation amount so deposited. 15. The order of the Sub Court, Coimbatore in L.A.O.P.No.61 of 2001 is modified. The market value is fixed at Rs.2500/-per cent total compensation is reduced to Rs.15,32,500/-. No costs.