Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1017 (MAD)

Revenue Divisional Officer v. Girijammal

2012-02-24

R.BANUMATHI, S.VIMALA

body2012
Judgment :- R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.4,25,802/- to Rs.1,06,96,434.80 in respect of the land acquired in Ambur Town Dry S.No.10/3A measuring an extent of 1.27.87 hectares [1,38,124.80 sq. ft.] for construction of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Depot, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur has filed this Appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Division-II Limited came to be impleaded as 2nd Appellant in this appeal. 2. Factual background are as follows:- On the request of the erstwhile Managing Director, Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation, Vellore, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of 1.27.87 hectares of Dry land in T.S.No.10/3A, Ambur Town, Vaniyambadi Taluk for construction of Bus Depot by Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation. The Government considered the proposal of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation and approved sanction for publication of Sec.4(1) notification in G.O.Ms.No.6353, Transport Department dated 28.11.1990. Section 4(1) notification was published on 14.12.1990 in two Tamil dailies and also duly published in the locality on 12.02.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] has conducted Section 5-A enquiry on 01.04.1991. Section 6 declaration was published in the Gazette on 01.01.1992 and also Sec.6 declaration was published in the newspapers on 26.12.1991 and 15.01.1992 respectively. 3. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 12.02.1991, LAO collected sales statistics for the period from 01.07.1988 to 03.06.1991. There are 202 sales during the said period. Out of the said sales, Serial No.142 -sale in respect of S.No.1/1 in Block 9 measuring an extent of 0.15 cents [Document No.1993 dated 17.08.1990] was been taken as the data land and on that basis LAO has fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,47,000/- per hectare [Rs.1,00,000/-per acre] with 30% solatium. LAO has also ordered 12% additional market value for 4 months and 6 days i.e. 12.02.1991 to 20.06.1991] and passed Award No.2/92-93 dated 18.12.1992. As per the Award, total compensation of Rs.4,25,802.00 has been paid to the Claimant. 4. On objection raised by the Respondent-Girija Ammal, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. In the Reference Court, Claimant examined herself as PW1. The husband of purchaser in Ex.A2-sale deed Abdul Sathar was examined as PW2. One Gnanam was examined as PW3. Purchaser in Ex.A4 Sathiyamoorthy was examined as PW4. 4. On objection raised by the Respondent-Girija Ammal, reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. In the Reference Court, Claimant examined herself as PW1. The husband of purchaser in Ex.A2-sale deed Abdul Sathar was examined as PW2. One Gnanam was examined as PW3. Purchaser in Ex.A4 Sathiyamoorthy was examined as PW4. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of Claimant. On the side of Appellant, the then Sub-Collector Sivachandran was examined as RW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Reference Court held that on the western side of the acquired land, Tamil Nadu Housing Board acquired the lands. As against the Award passed in those lands, Land Acquisition Original Petitions were filed in L.A.O.P.Nos.34 of 1981 and 49 of 1982 in which the market value of the land was fixed at Rs.43.65 for one square feet and later modified as Rs.3714.72 per cent. As against which, appeals came to be filed in A.S.No.1079 and 1980 of 1987 before the High Court. Reference Court proceeded under the footing as if in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the Division Bench has fixed the market value at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. Observing that the said acquisition was in 1980's and that for the acquisition in 1991 higher rate is to be fixed, Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Deducting 50% for development charges, Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.50/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved with the enhancement, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur has preferred this appeal. The Acquisition Body/Beneficiary viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is also the Appellant. 6. On behalf of Acquisition Body/Beneficiary, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly taken the land covered in Ex.B2-sale deed (17.08.1990) as the data land and fixed the value at Rs.1000/- per cent and Rs.2,47,000/-per hectare. Drawing our attention to the earlier judgment in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that as per the judgment in the earlier appeals [A.S.No.1079 and 1080 of 1987], the market value was fixed at Rs.8.56 per sq. ft. and only by arithmetical error, Reference Court has said that the value was fixed by the High Court at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. ft. and only by arithmetical error, Reference Court has said that the value was fixed by the High Court at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. It was further submitted that Reference Court did not keep in view that 436 square feet makes one cent and as per the judgment in the earlier appeals, the amount per square feet works out only to Rs.8.56 and while so, Reference Court ought not to have fixed the value at very high rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. 7. Mr. R.Subramanian, learned counsel for Respondent would submit that the lands on the western side were already acquired for Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the acquired land is situated in the midst of the developed area and therefore, the market value fixed by the Reference Court is just and reasonable. 8. Upon consideration of rival contentions and the judgment of the Reference Court, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:- (1)Whether the Reference Court was right in proceeding under the footing that the value fixed in A.S.No.1079 and 1080 of 1987 [02.02.1998] was Rs.43.65 per sq. ft.? (2)Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is reasonable? If not what is the reasonable compensation to be awarded to the Respondent-Claimant? 9. Factual error in the judgment of the Reference Court As pointed out earlier, Reference Court proceeded to fix the value at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. based on the judgment of the Division Bench in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987 and accordingly, fixed the market value at Rs.100/-per sq. ft. By perusal of the judgment in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987 [02.02.1998], it is seen that the High Court has fixed a sum of Rs.4,36,500/- per acre i.e. Rs.4365/-per cent. Since there was some error in the calculation of the said amount, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur has filed C.M.P.No.1874 and 1875 of 1999 in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987. In those applications, by the order dated 23.07.2001, the High Court modified the earlier order and fixed the sum at Rs.3714.72 as rate per cent. Reference Court proceeded to observe that in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the High Court has fixed the market value at Rs.43.65 per square feet. Even if the value is taken at Rs.4365/- for one cent [as per the judgment dated 02.02.1998 in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987], the value of one square feet would be only Rs.10.01. Reference Court proceeded to observe that in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the High Court has fixed the market value at Rs.43.65 per square feet. Even if the value is taken at Rs.4365/- for one cent [as per the judgment dated 02.02.1998 in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987], the value of one square feet would be only Rs.10.01. In A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the modified value has been fixed at Rs.3714.72 per cent. As such if the modified amount of Rs.3,714.72 per cent is taken into account, the amount per square feet works out only to Rs.8.56. While so, Reference Court committed a gross factual error in saying that in the judgment in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the market value was fixed at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. By proceeding on that factual error, the Reference Court appears to have fixed the market value at Rs.100/-per sq. ft. The approach and the finding of the Reference Court is factually erroneous and therefore, enhancement of market value at Rs.100/- per sq. ft. by the Reference Court cannot be sustained. 10. Value fixed on the basis of the Data land in S.No.1/1 -Keeping in view the well settled principles governing determination of market value, we have considered the submissions and evidence on record. The land acquired is in S.No.10/3A 1.27.87 hectares (3.16 acres = 316 cents) i.e. 1,38,124.80 sq. ft. The acquired land is situated adjacent to Madras-Calicut road. The data land is in S.No.1/1 of Ambur town. Under Ex.B2-sale deed dated 17.08.1990 [Doc.No.1993], 15 cents of land along with Jasmine [Mullai] plants and 5 coconut trees in T.S.No.1/1, Ward A, Block 9 were sold for Rs.19,000/-. Out of which the value of the land alone is Rs.15,000/-. Since larger extent was sold under the said sale deed dated 17.08.1990, the LAO is said to have taken the said sale as the basis for comparison. By perusal of Ex.B3-Topo sketch, we find that the data land in T.S.No.1/1 is situated far away from the acquired land. 11. In his evidence, RW1-Sivachandran has stated that the acquired land was only agricultural land and therefore, the sale deed (Ex.B2 dated 17.08.1990) of the data land has been taken as the basis. In his evidence, RW1 has further stated that the value of the acquired land was fixed taking into consideration as an agricultural land. 11. In his evidence, RW1-Sivachandran has stated that the acquired land was only agricultural land and therefore, the sale deed (Ex.B2 dated 17.08.1990) of the data land has been taken as the basis. In his evidence, RW1 has further stated that the value of the acquired land was fixed taking into consideration as an agricultural land. As pointed out earlier, the lands on the western side of the acquired land were already acquired for TNHB. TNHB has constructed houses and the same has become residential area. The acquired land is situated within the municipal limits. When the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and when the adjacent area has already been acquired for TNHB, the Acquisition Officer was not right in taking the data land in T.S.No.1/1, Ward A as the basis for fixing the market value. The value fixed by the LAO at Rs.1,00,000/-per acre is very less. 12. Market value - For determination of amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired, the market value therefor is to be ascertained. Expression "market value" has been the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in several cases. 13. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon various factors, the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non-irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road or 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. [Vide (2005) 4 SCC 789 (Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat); (2008) 2 SCC 568 (Atma Singh v. State of Haryana) and (2009) 1 SCALE 545 (Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO. v. Shaik Azam Sahib)]. 14. Claimant has to prove that the compensation awarded by the LAO is not adequate and the same does not reflect that the market value of the land on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. v. Shaik Azam Sahib)]. 14. Claimant has to prove that the compensation awarded by the LAO is not adequate and the same does not reflect that the market value of the land on the date of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Claimant has to adduce evidence to the fact that on the relevant date the market value of the "land in question" was high. Determination of market value of the land depends upon facts and circumstances of each case, amongst them would be the amount of compensation mentioned in the sale deed executed in respect of similarly situated land nearby and at the date of issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 15. Claimant examined herself as PW1. In her evidence, she has stated that the acquired land is in Madras-Calicut road. PW1 would further state that the other shops belonging to her are situated near the acquired land and the acquired land is stated to be at walkable distance from Ambur bus stand and prayed for enhancement of compensation. 16. In his evidence RW1 has stated that Theatre, Schools, Shops and residential houses are situated nearby the acquired land and the acquired land is situated adjacent to Madras-Calicut road. RW1 would also state that Hospitals and Police Station are also situated at a distance of two furlong from the acquired land. In his evidence RW1 has admitted that before passing the Award, he has not visited the acquired land. 17. Admittedly, the acquired land is situated adjacent to Madras-Calicut road and is within the municipal limits. Acquired land is near to the developed area. It is pertinent to note that western side of the acquired land was already acquired by TNHB for construction of houses where the houses are already constructed by TNHB. The Claimant has stated that she also got layout for her lands in S.No.10/3. By perusal of Ex.A3-layout, it is seen that approval was obtained in 1985. It was suggested to the Claimant [PW1] that she got the approval for layout only on coming to know about the acquisition of adjacent land by Tamil Nadu Housing Board which ofcourse, the Claimant has denied. In any event, approval of layout only suggests that the acquired land had potentials for developent. 18. It was suggested to the Claimant [PW1] that she got the approval for layout only on coming to know about the acquisition of adjacent land by Tamil Nadu Housing Board which ofcourse, the Claimant has denied. In any event, approval of layout only suggests that the acquired land had potentials for developent. 18. Sale of comparable instance - Stating that sale deeds were executed in respect of the properties near to the acquired land, Claimant has produced Exs.A1, A2 and A4. The details of Exs.A1, A2 and A4-sale deeds are as under:- “TABLE” 19. Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 12.02.1991. Notice was served on 27.02.1991 and Section 5-A enquiry was held on 01.04.1991. After publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the Gazette (01.01.1992), Award was passed on 18.12.1992. Exs.A1 and A2-sale deeds are long after Sec.4(1) notification. Courts cannot be oblivious of the tendency of land owners / Claimants to create documents at fancy price so as to derive maximum benefits. Valuation as on the date of notification alone have to be taken into consideration. Exs.A1 and A2 being subsequent to Sec.4(1) notification, they cannot be taken as sales of comparable instances. 20. Under Ex.A.4 sale deed (dated 16.07.1990), 1904 = sq. ft. in S.No.126/B(Part) and 2/27(Part) was sold for a sum of Rs.1,71,500/- i.e., Rs.90/- per sq. ft. The learned counsel for Claimant would fairly concede that based upon the judgment in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the Reference Court committed an arithmetical mistake by taking the value as Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. The learned counsel for Claimant would further submit that despite the arithmetical mistake committed by the Reference Court, Ex.A.4 - sale deed could be taken as sale of comparable instance and the first Appellate Court is empowered to determine the questions by appreciating the available materials on record. The learned counsel would further submit that taking Ex.A.4 as sale of comparable instance, the value of the acquired land has to be taken at Rs.90/-per sq. ft as market value. 21. Refuting the contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that when the Claimant has conceded the mistake committed by the Reference Court, without filing any cross objection, the Claimant cannot urge the Court to take Ex.A.4 sale deed as the sale of comparable instance and ask the Court to fix the market value at Rs.90/- per sq. 21. Refuting the contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that when the Claimant has conceded the mistake committed by the Reference Court, without filing any cross objection, the Claimant cannot urge the Court to take Ex.A.4 sale deed as the sale of comparable instance and ask the Court to fix the market value at Rs.90/- per sq. ft. 22. There is no merit in the contention that without filing cross objection, the Claimant cannot advance argument with reference to Ex.A.4-sale deed. Under Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33 C.P.C, the Appellate Court has been given the fullest power to do complete justice between the parties. Law is well settled that when the Appellate Court finds any inconsistent contradictory findings, the first Appellate Court would exercise its power to do complete justice. The combined reading of Order 41 Rules 22 and 33 CPC is sufficient to empower the Appellate Court to appreciate and re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties. Where the ends of justice so demand, the Court has the right to mould the relief by appreciating/re-appreciating the evidence. There is no force in the contention of the Appellants that the Claimant cannot advance argument based upon Ex.A.4 - sale deed. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General advanced alternative arguments assailing Ex.A.4 sale deed contending that the plot covered under Ex.A.4 sale deed was a commercial plot of very small extent situated in a prime locality in Ambur and therefore, the same cannot be taken as sale of comparable instance for the acquired land. The Learned Advocate General would further submit that the acquired land was only a fallow land (jhpR epyk;) and also situated in a low lying area and therefore, the value stated in Ex.A.4 sale deed cannot at all be taken as basis for arriving at the market value. 24. In (2001) 7 SCC 650 [Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others], the Supreme Court held as under:- "3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is referred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land." 25. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land." 25. In (2003) 12 SCC 334 [Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. v. Nookala Rajamallu and others], principles of fixation of fair market value with reference to comparable sales are stated as under:- (i)when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii)it would 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. It is to be seen that whether the above factors are present in Ex.A4-sale deed and whether the value stated thereon can be taken as sale of comparable instance. 26. As pointed out earlier, 1904= sq. ft. in S.No.126/B(Part) and S.No.2/27(Part) was sold for a sum of Rs.1,71,500/- i.e. Rs.90/- per square feet. The purchaser of Ex.A4-sale deed (Sathyamurthy) was examined as PW4. By perusal of the evidence of PW4, it is seen that PW4 was already running a hotel in the said place and that he continues to run the hotel. Since PW4 was already running a hotel, to have continuity and to sustain his hotel business, whatever be the cost, PW4 was under necessity to purchase the said property. Thus, PW4 was under compelling circumstance to purchase the property in S.No.126/B(Part) and S.No.2/27(Part), whatever be its boosted value. Therefore, the value quoted in Ex.A4-sale deed cannot be taken for comparison. 27. That apart the plot purchased in Ex.A4-sale deed is in S.No.126/B(Part) and S.No.2/27(Part). By perusal of Ex.B3-Topo sketch, it is seen that those Survey Numbers are situated far away from the acquired land. Since PW4 was already running a hotel, he was under compelling circumstance to purchase the said property, whatever be its price. Therefore, in our considered view, Ex.A4-sale deed cannot be taken as sale of comparable instance. 28. What is the approximate Market value - In the sales statistics from July 1988 to June 1991, 202 sale deeds were taken. Since PW4 was already running a hotel, he was under compelling circumstance to purchase the said property, whatever be its price. Therefore, in our considered view, Ex.A4-sale deed cannot be taken as sale of comparable instance. 28. What is the approximate Market value - In the sales statistics from July 1988 to June 1991, 202 sale deeds were taken. For ascertaining the then prevailing market value, we may usefully refer to some of the sale deeds under which the properties were sold from January 1990 to January 1991. The following are the details of some of the sale deeds as found in the sales statistics (Ex.B1):- “TABLE” By careful analysis of the above said statistics in the sale deeds, it is seen that from January 1990 to January 1991, the property as house site was sold at the rate ranging from Rs.25/- to Rs.44.44 for one square feet. Value of the land ought to be fixed only on the basis of the market value reflected in various sale deeds in Ex.B1-sales statistics. In Serial No.144, sale deed dated 04.09.1990, the property measuring an extent of 900 sq. ft. in S.No.8/1, 2 was sold for one square feet at Rs.44.44 which appears to be the maximum value. Showing extreme indulgence to the Claimant, value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.44.44 per sq. ft. 29. Deduction for small plot Placing reliance upon (2003) 1 SCC 354 [Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana], learned Additional Advocate General would contend that sale of small plot cannot be taken on the value of large extent and that the prices for small plots cannot be directly adopt in valuing the larger extent of land. He has thus contended that deduction of 20% to 30% has to be made on account of acquisition of large area. 30. When the sale deed referring to smaller tract is produced as comparable instance, Court will have to bear in mind that large block of land will have to be developed by preparing layout plan, carving out roads. When large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on the basis of a cent/square feet cannot be said to be a safe criteria. When the value is taken based on the smaller plot for determining the compensation of large extent of land, suitable deduction has to be made. 31. When large extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on the basis of a cent/square feet cannot be said to be a safe criteria. When the value is taken based on the smaller plot for determining the compensation of large extent of land, suitable deduction has to be made. 31. In (1984) 2 SCC 324 [Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer], the Supreme Court held as under:- “When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. ....... In certain other cases, this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given.” Similar view was taken in (2003) 1 SCC 354 [Kasturi and others v. State of Haryanan] and (2006) 12 SCC 87 [Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu and others]. 32. Serial No.144-sale deed dated 04.09.1990 which we have taken as basis, as per the said sale deed dated 04.09.1990, 900 sq. ft. was sold for Rs.40,000/-. Since the value of the said sale deed is taken as basis, for determination of valueof large extent of land acquired [3.16 acres], suitable deduction of 15% has to be made. 33. Deduction towards development charges Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the land acquired was a fallow land (jhpR epyk;) and for forming the Bus Depot, land has to be levelled and made suitable for having proper access from the road. It was further submitted that the acquired land was lying very low and huge amount has to be spent for levelling the land and providing necessary amenities for having Bus Depot and making suitable provision for drainage and electricity etc. and therefore, prayed for 30% deduction to be made for development charges. 34. Learned counsel for Claimant would contend that only in a case of acquisition for housing, layouts will have to be formed by formation of roads and other civic amenities like sewerage and water and electricity lines and in the case of Bus Depot, no such deduction need be made. Contending that in a case of acquisition for Sugar factory, only 10% deduction was made, learned counsel for Respondent placed reliance upon (2008) 2 SCC 568 [Atma Singh (dead) through LRs. and others v. State of Haryana and another]. Contending that in a case of acquisition for Sugar factory, only 10% deduction was made, learned counsel for Respondent placed reliance upon (2008) 2 SCC 568 [Atma Singh (dead) through LRs. and others v. State of Haryana and another]. Contending that in a case of acquisition for railway lines, no deduction was made, learned counsel for Respondent placed reliance upon (2007) 9 SCC 447 [Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others]. Learned counsel for Claimant would contend that amount of deduction would depend upon the purpose of acquisition. 35. Deduction for development charges varies depending upon the purpose of acquisition. It also varies from place to place, area to area and amount of development which are required to be carried out. Therefore, suitable deduction will have to be made for development charges. In the case on hand, even though, acquisition was made for construction of Bus Depot, the land has to be levelled and made suitable for building purposes and having access road. That apart, roads, drainage for letting out the used water, electricity, communications are all to be provided. Considering the extent of land acquired for construction of Bus Depot of State Transport Corporation Buses, deduction of 10% is made for development charges. 36. Quantum of compensation As discussed earlier, Reference Court has committed factual error in finding that in A.S.Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the Division Bench has fixed the market value at Rs.43.65 per sq. ft. Reference Court has not looked into the value stated in the various sale deeds mentioned in the sales statistics [Ex.B1]. Market value of the acquired land fixed at Rs.100/-per sq. ft. by the Reference Court is very much on the higher side and the same is liable to be interfered with. Based on the sale deeds in the sales statistics, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.44.44 per sq. ft. Deducting 25% [15% towards deduction for small plot and 10% towards development charges] i.e. Rs.11.11, the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.33.33 per sq. ft. rounded off to Rs.35/- per sq. ft. 37. The compensation payable to the acquired land fixed at Rs.35/- per square feet could also be justified from yet another angle. ft. Deducting 25% [15% towards deduction for small plot and 10% towards development charges] i.e. Rs.11.11, the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.33.33 per sq. ft. rounded off to Rs.35/- per sq. ft. 37. The compensation payable to the acquired land fixed at Rs.35/- per square feet could also be justified from yet another angle. After modification of judgment in A.S. Nos.1079 and 1080 of 1987, the value has been fixed at Rs.3714.72 per cent which works out to Rs.8.56 per square feet. As per the decision in AIR 2002 SC 1558 : (2002) 3 SCC 688 [Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bangalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib], adopting 10% increase for 14 years, the value of the land approximately comes to Rs.32.86 per sq. ft. which again could be rounded of to Rs.35/- per sq. ft. 38. In the Award, it is stated that there are 6 yielding coconut trees and Ten young coconut trees in the portion of the land acquired. LAO has fixed the value of trees at Rs.1,450/-. Finding that if the coconut trees are alive, Claimant would get income from the said trees nearly for 20 years, Reference Court enhanced the value of trees from Rs.1,450/- to Rs.5000/- and the same is maintained. 39. In the result, compensation awarded by the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 1993 dated 19.02.2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupathur is reduced to Rs.48,34,400/-[1,38,124.80 sq. ft. x Rs.35/- = Rs.48,34,368/- rounded of to Rs.48,34,400/-]. The reduced compensation is payable with interest at the rate of 12% additional market value from 12.02.1991 to 20.06.1991; 30% solatium, 9% interest for one year from 21.06.1991 to 20.06.1992 and subsequent interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 21.06.1992 till the date of deposit and the appeal is partly allowed. It was stated before us that Appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-on 23.05.2006 and Respondent-Claimant had withdrawn the same. Appellants are directed to deposit the balance reduced compensation if any along with proportionate accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Respondent-Claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with proportionate accrued interest. Appellants are directed to deposit the balance reduced compensation if any along with proportionate accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the Respondent-Claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with proportionate accrued interest. The learned Special Government Pleader and learned Additional Advocate General and also the learned counsel for Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation shall be entitled to their respective fees in the Appeal. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this Appeal.