Judgment R.BANUMATHI, J 1. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation from Rs.29,700/- per acre to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre for the lands acquired in Ingur village, Perundurai Taluk for the purpose of Small Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu [SIPCOT] in Ingur village, the Government has preferred this appeal. 2. 2. Facts in nutshell which led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:- On the request of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TACID, land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of 2.82.0 Hectares of lands = 6.96 = acres in R.S. Nos.140/1 to 4 [R.S. No.140/1 - 0.83.5 Hectare; R.S. No.140/2 - 0.65.0 Hectare; R.S. No.140/3 - 0.65.0 Hectare; R.S. No.140/4 -0.68.5 Hectare] in Ingur village, Perundurai Taluk for SIPCOT. The Government considered the proposal of TACID and approved sanction for publication of Section 4(1) notification in G.O. No.369 Industries (MIH.2) Department dated 14.08.1992. Section 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil dailies on 30.8.1992. Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality on 02.09.1992. Section 5-A enquiry was held in the village on 12.01.1993 and 31.03.1993 respectively. Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 13.10.1993. 3. For the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 02.09.1992, Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] collected sales statistics for the period from 02.06.1989 to 13.12.1993 and there were 86 sales effected during that period. LAO has taken Serial No.50 in the sales statistics i.e. sale deed dated 26.06.1990, under which 90 cents was sold for Rs.26,730/-i.e. Rs.29,700/- per acre. Based on the said sale deed [26.06.1990], LAO has fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.29,700/-per acre and passed Award No.5/1995 on 13.10.1995. 4. On objection raised by the land owners, Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made. Land owners claimed enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. Before the Reference Court, 6th Claimant-Kulanthaisamy was examined as C.W.1. Witness to Ex.C2-Shanmugam was examined as C.W.2. Purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed [Muthusamy] was examined as C.W.3. E.N.Ramasamy was examined as C.W.4. Gettimuthu was examined as C.W.5. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked on the side of the Claimants. On the side of Appellant, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) K.Kaliappan was examined as R.W.1. Ex.B1-series was marked on the side of Appellant. 5. Purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed [Muthusamy] was examined as C.W.3. E.N.Ramasamy was examined as C.W.4. Gettimuthu was examined as C.W.5. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked on the side of the Claimants. On the side of Appellant, the then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) K.Kaliappan was examined as R.W.1. Ex.B1-series was marked on the side of Appellant. 5. Taking Ex.C4-sale deed (29.08.1991) as comparable sale, Reference Court has fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.4,36,363/-per acre. Deducting 40% for comparison with small plot and development charges, Reference Court has fixed the value of the land at Rs.2,60,000/-, rounded of to Rs.2,50,000/-per acre. Awarding 30% solatium and 12% additional market value for the period from 02.09.1992 to 13.10.1995, Reference Court has passed the order directing the Appellant to pay the enhanced compensation payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from 15.07.11992 to 14.07.1993 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of realisation. 6. On behalf of Appellant, Mr.P.Pasupatheeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) contended that S.No.522/4 sold under Ex.C4-sale deed is far away from the acquired lands and while so, the Reference Court erred in taking Ex.C4-sale deed as basis and that enhancement of compensation from Rs.29,700/- per acre to Rs.4,36,363/- per acre is exorbitant. It was further submitted that Reference Court did not keep in view that the acquired lands are situated in an interior place and the value fixed is on the higher side. 7. Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for Respondents 1,3,5 and 8 to 10 has submitted that the land acquired is very near to Ingur village and also Perundurai-Chennimalai main road. It was further submitted that the acquired land is surrounded by several Industries, Surya Food Products Company and other Factories and while so, the value fixed by the LAO at Rs.29,700/- per acre is very less. It was further submitted that the lands surrounding to the acquired land were sold for not less than Rs.3,00,000/-per acre and the value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.4,36,363/- per acre is reasonable. Learned counsel for Claimants has submitted that the land was acquired only for SIPCOT and while so, the deduction made at 40% by the Reference Court is very much on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for Claimants has submitted that the land was acquired only for SIPCOT and while so, the deduction made at 40% by the Reference Court is very much on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have carefully gone through the Award, materials on record and the impugned order of the Reference Court. Upon consideration of rival contentions, the point arise for consideration is whether the value fixed at Rs.2,50,000/-per acre by the Reference Court is just and reasonable. 9. The lands in S.Nos.140/1 - 0.83.5 Hectare; 140/2 - 0.65.0 Hectare; 140/3 -0.65.0 Hectare and 140/4 - 0.68.5 Hectare, totalling 2.82.0 Hectares of Ingur village, Perundurai Taluk were acquired for SIPCOT purpose. The lands acquired are stated to be very near to Perundurai-Chennimalai main road. It is stated that within the radius of one kilo meter, Surya Food Products Company, Spinning Mills, Schools, High Tension Electricity Station and Factories are said to be located. The acquired land being surrounded by Industries, Factories and Schools would clearly show that the acquired land had potentials for future development and while so, LAO was not right in fixing the market value on acre basis. 10. Market value 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)]. 11. 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)]. 11. Claimant has to prove that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate and that the same does not reflect the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 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 consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed in respect of similarly situated land nearby and at the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 12. In his evidence, CW1-Kulanthaisami (6th Claimant) has stated that the acquired land is very near to Perundurai-Chennimalai road. He has stated that within the radius of one kilo meter, there are number of Factories, Amudham Food Products Company, Poultry, Crushers, Schools are located. He has further stated that the lands surrounding the acquired lands are sold for higher market value. The acquired land being surrounded by Industries, Factories and Schools, acquired land has potentials for future development. 13. In his evidence, CW2-Shanmugam [witness to Ex.C2-sale deed] has stated that under Ex.C2-sale deed, M/s.Surya Food Products Company has purchased 1.55 acres in S.No.832/4 for R.1,55,000/-. CW2 has further stated that he signed as witness in Ex.C2 - sale deed and that the sale consideration was Rs.2,50,000/- per acre and since the guideline value was less, Ex.C2-sale deed was executed for Rs.1,55,000/-. CW2 has further stated that National Highway is situated at a distance about > kilo meter and that the acquired land is surrounded by Industries, Surya Food Products Company, Spinning Mills and Crushers. He has further stated that the acquired land would fetch more value. 14. The Purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed [29.08.1991] was examined as CW3. CW3Muthusamy, has stated that he purchased 5= cents of land in S.No.522/4 from Chinnammal for Rs.24,000/-. He has further stated that the acquired land would fetch more value. 14. The Purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed [29.08.1991] was examined as CW3. CW3Muthusamy, has stated that he purchased 5= cents of land in S.No.522/4 from Chinnammal for Rs.24,000/-. CW3 has stated that he purchased the land at the rate of Rs.7000/- per cent [Rs.7,00,000/-per acre] and since the guideline value was less, Ex.C4-sale deed was executed at Rs.24,000/- [Rs.4363/-per cent]. CW3 has further stated that the acquired land is surrounded by house sites, Factories, Spinning Mills, Schools and Poultry. CW3 has further stated that N.H.47 road situated very near to the acquired lands and during the year 1989 the lands in and around the acquired lands were sold at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. 15. In his evidence, CW4-E.N.Ramasamy has stated that he owned 5 cents of land adjacent to the acquired land and the acquired land is surrounded by Panchayat Union School, Surya Food Products Company, Amudham Food Products Company, Spinning Mills, Poultry and South Indian Bank Limited. CW4 has further stated that during the year 1989, the lands in Ingur village was sold at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. 16. CW5-Gettimuthu has stated that he owned 90 cents of land adjacent to the acquired land and the acquired land is surrounded by Industries, Schools, Surya Food Products Company, Spinning Mills. He has further stated that during the year 1989, the lands in Ingur village were sold at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/-per acre. In his evidence, CW5 has further stated that since the guideline value was less, the actual purchase rate was not mentioned in the sale deeds. He has further stated that the acquired land would fetch more value. The collective evidence of C.Ws.1 to 5 would clearly show that the acquired land is located in the midst of factories, industries, spinning mills and schools and also nearby the National Highway. 17. The then Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) was examined as RW1. In his evidence, RW1 has stated that Perundurai main road is within the distance of one kilo meter from the acquired lands. Even though RW1 has denied that Industries, Factories are situated around the acquired lands, the fact remains that the acquired lands are very near to the National Highway road as well as Perundurai village. Claimants have adduced consistent evidence showing that the acquired lands being potential for development. 18. Even though RW1 has denied that Industries, Factories are situated around the acquired lands, the fact remains that the acquired lands are very near to the National Highway road as well as Perundurai village. Claimants have adduced consistent evidence showing that the acquired lands being potential for development. 18. Sale of comparable instance -Stating that the sale deeds were executed in respect of the properties near to the acquired lands, Claimants have produced Exs.C1 to C4. The details of Exs.C1 to C4-sale deeds are as under:- 19. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land. However, there are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled for fixing the market value based on comparable sales. The factors laid down are:-(i) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (ii) 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, (iii) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (iv) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and (v) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. [Vide (2002) 7 SCC 650 (Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others] and (2003) 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh v. Nookala Rajamallu and others]. 20. Reference Courthas taken Ex.C4-sale deed [29.08.1991] as comparable instance and calculated the value of the acquired land at Rs.4,36,363/-per acre. It is to be seen whether the factors indicated in Paragraph (19) are present in Ex.C4-sale deed and whether the value stated thereon can be taken as sale of comparable instance. In his evidence, CW3-Muthusamy has spoken about the purchase of land in Ex.C4-sale deed for Rs.7000/- per cent. As per Ex.C4-sale deed, the land was sold for Rs.4363/-per cent i.e. Rs.4,36,300/- per acre. By perusal of Topo-sketch, it is seen that S.No.522/4 is situated on the eastern side of acquired land within a short distance. 21. In his evidence, CW3-purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed has stated that he purchased 5= cents in S.No.522/4 under Ex.C4-sale deed. As per Ex.C4-sale deed, the land was sold for Rs.4363/-per cent i.e. Rs.4,36,300/- per acre. By perusal of Topo-sketch, it is seen that S.No.522/4 is situated on the eastern side of acquired land within a short distance. 21. In his evidence, CW3-purchaser in Ex.C4-sale deed has stated that he purchased 5= cents in S.No.522/4 under Ex.C4-sale deed. CW3 has stated that he has paid sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- per cent i.e. Rs.7,00,000/-per acre, but the sale deed was executed at the value of Rs.4,363/- per cent i.e. Rs.4,36,300/-per acre. Since the guideline value was less, the sale deed was executed for Rs.24,000/- for 5= cents. CW3 has further stated that adjacent to the acquired lands, there are number of Factories, layouts, Schools are situated and that the acquired lands are situated in a fast developing area. Considering, Ex.C4-sale deed and the evidence of CW3-Muthusamy, we find that the factors laid down in (2003) 12 SCC 334 (Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh v. Nookala Rajamallu and others] are present and rightly the Reference Court has taken Ex.C4-sale deed [29.08.1991] as sale of comparable instance and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Reference Court for taking Ex.C.4 -sale deed as comparable instance. 22. Deduction - Based on Ex.C4-sale deed, Reference Court has taken the value of the acquired land at Rs.4,36,363/- per acre. Reference Court has deducted 40% for comparison with small plot and also for development charges. It is well settled that the price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land. A large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out roads, leave open space and making it fit for which it was acquired. Substantial area is to be used for development of sites. Considering the purpose of acquisition and comparison with small plot, Reference Court deducted 40% for development charges. Since the land was acquired for SIPCOT/Industrial purpose, such a huge deduction of 40% was not necessitated. However, since there is no cross-objection or cross-appeal filed by the Claimants, we do not propose to further delve into this aspect. 23. Deducting 40% for comparison with small plot and also for development charges, Reference Court has fixed the value at Rs.2,60,000/-, rounded of to Rs.2,50,000/-per acre. However, since there is no cross-objection or cross-appeal filed by the Claimants, we do not propose to further delve into this aspect. 23. Deducting 40% for comparison with small plot and also for development charges, Reference Court has fixed the value at Rs.2,60,000/-, rounded of to Rs.2,50,000/-per acre. Viewing from any angle, the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre is just and reasonable warranting no interference. 24. As per Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 30% solatium is payable on the said market value and as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 12% additional market value is to be calculated for a limited period of Section 4(1) notification [02.09.1992] to the date of Award [13.10.1995] which the Reference Court has rightly awarded. 9% interest for the period of one year from 15.07.1992 to 14.07.1993 and thereafter at 15% per annum from 15.07.1993 till the date of deposit awarded by the Reference Court is also in accordance with Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act. 25. In the result, the enhancement of compensation made in L.A.O.P.No.22 of 2002 dated 07.03.2005 on the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Erode is confirmed. Insofar as, 30% solatium; 12% additional market value for a limited period from 02.09.1992 to 13.10.1995; 9% interest for one year period [15.07.1992 to 14.07.1993] and thereafter, interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 15.07.1993 till the date of deposit are also confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs. 26. It was stated before us that as per the order in C.M.P. No.6643 of 2006 [22.06.2006], Appellant has deposited 25% of the compensation and the Claimants have withdrawn 50% of the same. Claimants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited compensation along with proportionate accrued interest lying in the Court. 27. Appellant is directed to deposit the balance 75% of the compensation amount 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 Claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share along with proportionate accrued interest.