Judgment :- R.BANUMATHI, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.150/- per cent to Rs.20,000/- per cent by Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, Government – Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Metro Water Scheme, Chennai has preferred these appeals. 2. Since all these appeals arise out of common judgment, all the appeals shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The lands of an extent of Ac.70.68 cents situated in various survey numbers in Chembarambakkam village for construction of treatment plant by Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity "the Act") was published on 21.10.1987. After conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25.5.1990. 4. To fix the market value of the land under acquisition, the land Acquisition Officer has taken sale statistics for the period of three years from 1.6.1986 to 31.5.1989. There were 326 sales effected during that period in the village. The Land Acquisition Officer discarded number of sales. Sale of land in item Nos.82 and 83 were taken for fixing the value of the land. In Item Nos.82 and 83 of sale statistics, sales to an extent of 3.00 and 2.65 acres of dry lands were sold in Survey No.137/2. Out of the same, Item No.82, in which an extent of Ac.3.00 was sold for Rs.45,000/- as per Document No.3319 dated 15.5.1987 which works out to Rs.150/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken the sale deed - document No.3319 opining that the said lands are of same tharam and quality as that of the land under acquisition, fixed the value at Rs.150/- per cent and passed the award on 26.5.1992. 5. On objection raised by the land owners, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. The land owners claimed for enhanced compensation at Rs.,30,000/- per cent. Before the reference Court, Claimants have produced Exs.A.1 to A.3. Under Ex.A.2 dated 21.12.1989, an extent of 4,484 sq.ft in Survey No.849 was sold for Rs.2,75,000/-. Taking Ex.A.2 as comparable sale, the reference Court has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/- per cent. No deduction was made for development charges. 6. Before the reference Court, Claimants have produced Exs.A.1 to A.3. Under Ex.A.2 dated 21.12.1989, an extent of 4,484 sq.ft in Survey No.849 was sold for Rs.2,75,000/-. Taking Ex.A.2 as comparable sale, the reference Court has fixed the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/- per cent. No deduction was made for development charges. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant and the requisitioning body contended that Court below has not given any reasons for rejection of Exs.A.1 and A3, which are vacant lands. The main contention of the Appellant is that Exs.A.1 to A.3 are subsequent to Section 4(1) notification and those sale deeds cannot form basis for fixing market value. It was further contended that Survey No.849 sold under Ex.A.2 is very far away from the acquired land and while so Court below erred in taking Ex.A.2 as the basis and the enhancement of compensation for the acquired land at Rs.20,000/- per cent is exorbitant and on the higher side. It was further argued that the enhanced compensation fixed by the Court below is excessive and no deduction was made for development charges. 7. We heard Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader (Appellate Side), Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for Claimants/Respondent No.1 in A.S.No.203 of 2004, Respondent Nos.3, 8 and 11 to 13 in A.S.No.204 of 2004 and respondent Nos.2 to R.4 in A.S.No.205 of 2004 and Mr.A.Kuppusamy, learned counsel appearing for Claimants/respondent Nos. 2,4 to 7 and 9 in A.S.No.204 of 2009. 8. Learned counsel for Claimants submitted that the land acquired is adjacent to the National Highways and is in the midst of developed area and very near to the city and has potential for development and the Court below had rightly taken into account Ex.A.2 as a comparable sale for fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.20,000/-. 9. The acquired lands are in Survey Nos.135/2C, 138/2, 138/1, 138/4A, 138/4B and 135/5A etc. According to the Appellant, both the acquired lands and data land in Survey No.137/2 are similar in all aspects i.e., tharam and classification and the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in fixing the market value at Rs.150/- per cent. 10. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land. 10. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act depends upon a large number of factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land. The area of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring thereof amongst others would be relevant factors Apart from nature and quality of land in the event of agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, viz., 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. 11. Principles for determination of market value:- In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has laid down the governing principles for determination of amount of compensation. The positive as well as negative factors 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 ordinarilythe 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. 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. 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. 12. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, we have considered the facts and evidence. Acquired lands are adjacent to National High Ways and is very near to Poonamallee High Way. Industrial parks, educational institutions and number of Kalyanamandapams are stated to be very near to the acquired lands. In his evidence, C.W.1 has stated that the data land taken by Land Acquisition Officer in Survey No.137 is far interior at about 5 km from the National High Ways. C.W.1 has further stated that in the data land, mud was dug for manufacture of bricks and because of deep pits in the data land, the same is said to have been rendered useless. Evidence of C.W.1 as to the data land is not much controverted excepting bare denial by R.W.1. By perusal of topo sketch, we also find that the data land is far interior. Evidence of C.W.1 as to the data land is not much controverted excepting bare denial by R.W.1. By perusal of topo sketch, we also find that the data land is far interior. Since the data land is far interior and is also lower in level, it would fetch only less rate. When the acquired lands are just abutting National High Ways, the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in taking the far interior land for comparison. 13. We have also gone through sale statistics of 326 sale deeds taken by the Land Acquisition Officer. By going through sale statistics, we find that in Survey No.160/5, 11cents was sold (Sl.No.92) for Rs.24,126/- by a sale deed dated 10.7.1987 and in the said sale deed itself, market value was shown as Rs.30,000/-. We also find that the lands in S.Nos.230, 232 and 243 were sold as house plots and the value of the land per cent was ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,300/-. When the lands in adjacent areas were sold as house plots, the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in taking Survey Np.137/2 as the land for comparison. 14. The acquired lands are in Chembarambakkam. In his evidence, C.W.1 has stated that the lands were given to them as Streedhana by the family of former Minister Bhaktavatsalam and that the lands are the ancestral properties and that they were keeping the lands attaching much sentiments to them. One of the claimant -Dakshinamoorthy was examined as C.W.1. In his evidence, C.W.1 has also stated that the acquired lands are in the midst of developed area and is very near to the National Highways – Bangalore – Chennai. In his evidence, C.W.1 has stated that the acquired lands are situated on the southern side of Bangalore – Chennai National Highways. C.W.1 has stated that the acquired lands are in one stretch abutting National High Ways to a length of about 1 km and one furlong in breadth. C.W.1 has further stated that SIDCO Industrial Park and number of other Kalyanamandapams and educational institutions are situated near the acquired lands. Evidence of C.W.1 reads as under: (TAMIL) 15. C.W.1 has further stated that the limits of Poonamallee stretches from Kattupakkam to Chembarambakkam and that the acquired lands being adjacent to National Highways, they are suitable for industrial as well as residential purposes. Evidence of C.W.1 reads as under: (TAMIL) 15. C.W.1 has further stated that the limits of Poonamallee stretches from Kattupakkam to Chembarambakkam and that the acquired lands being adjacent to National Highways, they are suitable for industrial as well as residential purposes. Speaking about the potential of the acquired lands for development, in his evidence C.W.1 has stated that the land being just abutting National Highways, would have been ideal for factories, industries, hotels, petrol bunks and would have been suitable for commercial purposes. C.W.1 has further stated that the acquired lands being very near to Chennai city, over the years, it would have fetched higher market value. 16. The Special Tahsildar has also admitted during his cross examination before the reference Court that the acquired lands are adjacent to the National Highways. The land Acquisition Officer has also admitted that within the radius of 5 km of acquired lands, there are industries, educational institutions, houses and there are other developed areas. He would also fairly admit that on all four sides of acquired lands, there is a vast development and that the lands have potential for future development. 17. From the evidence of C.W.1 and the Tahsildar, it comes to be known that the entire acquired land is in the midst of developed area. Being very near to the city, the lands acquired have potential for development. 18. Stating that the acquired lands would fetch higher value, before the Reference Court, claimants produced three documents as under: "Document SurveySale Value of land marked as No. Extent consideration per cent (in rupees) (in rupees) Ex.A.1 310/1 3040 sq.ft. Rs.48,840/- 6,976 Dt.17.2.1988 Ex.A.2 849 4484 sq.ft. Rs.2,75,000/- 26,596 dt.21.12.1989 Ex.A.3 570/2 2614 sq.ft. Rs.45,000/- 7,412" dt.16.5.1990 19. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 21.10.1987 and the above three sale deeds are subsequent to the Section 4(1) notification. By and large, the market value has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court, even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are proximate and genuine and if other documents are not available. Reference Court had not recorded any reasons as to why it has taken Exs.A.1 to A.3 even though they are subsequent to Section 4(1) notification. 20. As held by the Supreme Court, even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are proximate and genuine and if other documents are not available. Reference Court had not recorded any reasons as to why it has taken Exs.A.1 to A.3 even though they are subsequent to Section 4(1) notification. 20. Laying down the consideration for comparable instances, in AIR 1988 SC 1652 (CHIMANLAL VS. SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA), the Supreme Court has held as under: (1)..... (2) ...... (3) ...... (4) ..... (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do......." (underline supplied) 21. Applying the ratio of decision of the Supreme Court as such, the subsequent instances cannot be taken as comparable sales. Even going by Exs.A.1 and A3, we find that the market value per cent is Rs.6,976/- and Rs.7,412/- respectively. Reference Court has not recorded any reasonings as to why Exs.A.1 and A3 were not taken into account. Equally, no reasonings were given as to why Ex.A.2 was taken into account for fixing the higher market value. By perusal of topo sketch, we find that the plot covered under Ex.A.2 sale deed is not only far away from the acquired land, but the said plot is in Poonamallee itself just abutting a street by name Jems Street. The plot covered under Ex.A.2 being situated in Poonamallee, both adjacent to National Highway as well as one Jems street, it would quite naturally fetch a very higher value. The reference Court was not justified in taking Ex.A.2 as comparable sale. Ex.A.2 is neither proximate from time angle nor proximate from situation angle. While so, reference Court was not justified in taking Ex.A.2 as comparable instance. 22. Since the lands acquired are in the midst of developed area and very near to the city, the lands acquired have potential for development. Having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands and they are adjacent to the Bangalore – Chennai National Highway and keeping in mind the value in sale statistics, Exs.A.1 and A3 and the subsequent escalation of prices of lands, we deem it appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.9,000/- per cent. 23. When large extent of land of Ac.70.68 cents was acquired, as held by the Supreme Court, by and large 1/3rd deduction will have to be made for development charges. 23. When large extent of land of Ac.70.68 cents was acquired, as held by the Supreme Court, by and large 1/3rd deduction will have to be made for development charges. The percentage of deduction to be made depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case before us, the lands are acquired for construction of treatment plant by Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 24. Having regard to the purpose for which the lands were acquired, in our considered view, deduction of 20 percent i.e., Rs.1,800/- rounded to Rs.1,500/-per cent towards development charges would be appropriate. Deducting the said development charges, the market value is fixed at Rs.7,500/- per cent. 25. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed in part by fixing the market value of the land at Rs.7,500/- per cent by reducing the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- per cent awarded by the reference Court and the reduced compensation amount shall be paid with 30 percent solatium and interest on the reduced amount. Interest is payable at the rate of 9 percent per annum for a period of one year from the date of possession (27.4.1993) and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of deposit of the respective amounts. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 26. By order dated 14.6.2004 made in C.M.P.Nos.6626 to 6628 of 2004, this Court has granted interim stay on condition of the Appellant depositing 25 percent of the award amount in each case including interest within a period of 12 weeks from the date of order. On 23.9.2004, as the conditional order was stated to have been complied with, by order made in C.M.P.Nos.15489 and 15490 of 2004, the claimants were permitted to withdraw the entire 25 percent amount deposited in accordance with the respective shares as fixed by the reference Court. It was stated before this Court that the 3rd respondent – Sekar has withdrawn the entire 25 percent of the amount deposited. 27. Learned counsel Mr.Kuppusamy appearing for Respondents No.2, 4 to 7 and 9 in A.S.No.204 of 2009 has stated that since 3rd Respondent - Sekar had withdrawn the entire amount, the other sharers could not withdraw any amount. It was stated before this Court that the 3rd respondent – Sekar has withdrawn the entire 25 percent of the amount deposited. 27. Learned counsel Mr.Kuppusamy appearing for Respondents No.2, 4 to 7 and 9 in A.S.No.204 of 2009 has stated that since 3rd Respondent - Sekar had withdrawn the entire amount, the other sharers could not withdraw any amount. During the pendency of the appeal, the said Sekar died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 28. The balance compensation amount to be deposited is to be apportioned amongst the respective sharers/respondents after affording opportunity of hearing to all the respondents and in accordance with the respective shares fixed by the reference Court. While apportioning the amount among sharers, Reference Court is directed to keep in mind that the amount withdrawn by deceased Sekar. We make it clear that the further compensation amount to be deposited by the Appellant as modified above has to be paid by the reference Court only after fixing the respective shares of the respondents by issuing Cheques in the names of the parties. Mr. Ravi, Special Government Pleader (A.S.) shall be entitled to separate fee in each of the appeals. The petition in C.M.P.No.295 of 2010 filed for direction for issuance of cheques for compensation in individual names is ordered in the above terms.