JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court in C.M.A.No.6 of 2001 dated 18.06.2004 against the enhancement of compensation for the acquired land at Rs.2,100/- per one cent from a sum of Rs.210/-as awarded in award No.11/2000-2001 dated 27.03.2001 by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer and the Government are the appellants, who were shown as respondents before the lower appellate court. The respondents herein were the appellants before the lower appellate court, who were also claimants in the Land Acquisition Proceedings. 3. The case of the parties before the lower appellate court would be that the lands in S.No.344/A1B of an extent of 1.00.5 hectares equivalent to 2 acres 48 cents of Thurambadi Village, Dharapuram Taluk was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for the housing accommodation of Adidravidar community people. Accordingly, necessary 4(1) notification was issued and enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer had obtained data sales effected during the period of one year prior to the 4(1) notification i.e., 27.12.2000 and had compared with the nature and 'tharam' of those properties with that of the acquired lands and had finally considered the document No.1269 dated 15.11.2000 sold for Rs.50,500/- for an extent of 1.74½ acres and fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.21,000/- per acre. Along with the said compensation, 15% solatium and other benefits were also included for assessing the compensation and was granted in favour of the claimants. However, the claimants had objected to it and had applied for referral of the case for fixing the market value before the Court. 4. As per the request of the claimants, the said reference was taken on file as an appeal before the lower appellate court. 5. The claimants / appellants before the lower appellate court had objected that the fixation of market value by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.21,000/- per one acre is a meagre amount. The land which was adjacent to the acquired land was not selected by the Land Acquisition Officer in a sale taken place in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs.39,000/- per one acre. The acquired land is fastly developing and there are police station, Government Hospital, Government Higher Secondary School, Sub-Registrar's Office located near the acquired lands. The land which was adjacent to the acquired land was not selected by the Land Acquisition Officer in a sale taken place in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs.39,000/- per one acre. The acquired land is fastly developing and there are police station, Government Hospital, Government Higher Secondary School, Sub-Registrar's Office located near the acquired lands. Apart from that, so many banks, marriage halls, veterinary hospitals also located in and around the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the land located very near to the acquired land and he did not offer any explanation for the rejection of those lands for fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer did not award any compensation for severance. Therefore, the claimants had sought for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-per one acre to be fixed and compensation may be enhanced and ordered. 6. The lower appellate court had entered enquiry and had examined the claimants / appellants as CW.1 and CW.2 and three more witnesses as CW.3 to CW.5 and had admitted Exs.C1 to C10 on the side of the claimants. Similarly, RW.1 was examined on the side of the respondents and Exs.R1 to R5 were admitted on the side of the respondents. After appraising the evidence adduced before the lower appellate court, the market value of the land acquired was fixed at Rs.2,10,000/-per acre along with other benefits accrued under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by such enhancement of compensation, the respondents before the lower appellate court have preferred this Second Appeal. 7. On admission, this Court had formulated the following substantial question of law for the disposal of the present appeal. "Whether the Court below had erred in not appreciating the provisions of Section 8 of the Act 31 of 1978 wherein it is made clear that in the fixation of determining the amount of compensation, the purpose for which the land acquired shall not be a criteria and nature of land on the date of 4(1) notification shall be a criteria for determining the compensation?" 8. Heard Mr.M.Venugopal, learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S). No appearance for the respondents. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S) would submit in his argument that the lower appellate court had fixed the market value of the acquired land from Rs.21,000/- per acre to Rs.2,10,000/-per acre without any basis for such a huge enhancement. Heard Mr.M.Venugopal, learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S). No appearance for the respondents. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S) would submit in his argument that the lower appellate court had fixed the market value of the acquired land from Rs.21,000/- per acre to Rs.2,10,000/-per acre without any basis for such a huge enhancement. He would further submit that the land which was earmarked through the data particulars for fixing the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer was of the same character and therefore, the location of the said data land away from the acquired land will not cause any difference. He would also submit that the Land Acquisition Officer, while coming to the conclusion to enhance the compensation for ten times that the fixation of market value in par with Ex.C4, would not depict the correct value. He would also submit that the said sale deed Ex.C4 was in respect of a land in S.No.344/A1B for an extent of 5 cents, whereas the acquired land was for an extent of 2 acres 48 cents. He would further submit that the value of smaller extent cannot be considered to a larger extent of property, to which the market value has to be fixed. He would also submit that the value of the said property as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was dated 15.11.2000 for an extent of 1 acre 74½ cents and the extent of property was almost similar to the extent of acquired land and therefore, the market valued fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer should have been considered as correct. He would also submit in his arguments that the respondents did not pay court fee under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and on that aspect, the appeal preferred by the respondents before the lower appellate court was not maintainable. He would also submit in his arguments that even otherwise, the value fixed by the lower appellate court as per Ex.C1 has to be maintained. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354 (Kasturi..v.. State of Haryana) and (2008) 1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority ..v.. He would also submit in his arguments that even otherwise, the value fixed by the lower appellate court as per Ex.C1 has to be maintained. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354 (Kasturi..v.. State of Haryana) and (2008) 1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority ..v.. Krishna Gopal Lahoti), to the effect that whenever the market value of lesser extent of the property has to be applied for larger extent of the acquired property, 1/3rd deduction should have atleast, been done by the courts. He would therefore, request the Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and to fix the market value as arrived by the Land Acquisition Officer and thus, the appeal may be allowed. 10. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S). I have also perused the records viz., award and other data sales, evidence adduced before the lower appellate court and the judgment of the lower appellate court. 11. The acquisition of land in S.No.344/A1B for an extent of 1.00.5 hectares equivalent to 2 acres 48 cents in Thurambadi Village, Dharapuram Taluk was acquired for the purpose of providing accommodation to the Adidravidar community people. The said acquisition was initiated under Act 31 of 1978 and Section 4(1) notification was issued promptly by the District Collector, Erode. Subsequently, necessary enquiries were conducted under the provisions of the said Act and the Land Acquisition Officer had collected data sales one year prior to the date of 4(1) notification and had selected the document No.1269/2000 dated 15.11.2000 for an extent of 1 acre 74½ cents in Thurambadi Village for a sale consideration of Rs.50,500/- and had found that both the said land as well as the acquired land are of the same 'tharam' and character and accordingly he has fixed a sum of Rs.21,000/- as market value for one acre. Questioning the said fixation of the market value at Rs.21,000/- per acre for the acquired land, the claimants have preferred the appeal before the lower appellate court and produced the evidence for fixing the market value higher than the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Questioning the said fixation of the market value at Rs.21,000/- per acre for the acquired land, the claimants have preferred the appeal before the lower appellate court and produced the evidence for fixing the market value higher than the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The lower appellate court had appraised the evidence and had come to the conclusion of selecting the sale deed dated 19.02.1999, which was also much prior to the 4(1) notification dated 27.12.2000 produced as Ex.C4 in which the market value of the property was shown to be Rs.2,180/- per one cent. The said purchaser under Ex.C4 one Mahalakshmi was examined as CW.3 for proving the said document and accordingly, it was shown by her that in R.S.No.344/A1D she purchased 5 cents of land for a sum of Rs.10,900/-. The said value is otherwise a sum of Rs.2,180/- per one cent. Even though the lower appellate court had considered Exs.C5 and C6, it has selected Ex.C4 for fixing the market value. It is an admitted fact that the said property described in Ex.C4 was located very near to the land in acquisition. The said data land selected by the Land Acquisition Officer, who was examined as RW.1, was admittedly located away from the land in acquisition. Therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the appellants that the value as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is the correct value, cannot be appreciated. However, whether the value as fixed by the lower appellate court can be confirmed is the question to be decided herein after. 12. It is also an admitted fact that the land acquired for the aforesaid purpose was for an extent of 1.00.5 acre, which is equivalent to 2 acres 48 cents. However, the land chosen for fixing the market value by the lower appellate court in Ex.C4 was only an extent of 5 cents. The said document would go to show that the said land was sold as a house site. The lower appellate court while applying the value of house site with the land acquired for a patta land, certain procedures as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court should have been followed. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354 (Kasturi..v.. State of Haryana) and (2008) 1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority ..v.. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354 (Kasturi..v.. State of Haryana) and (2008) 1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority ..v.. Krishna Gopal Lahoti) which are as follows:- " (2003) 1 SCC 354 (Kasturi..v.. State of Haryana)at page 360 : "A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." " (2008) 1 SCC 554 (Lucknow Development Authority ..vs.. Krishna Gopal Lahoti)at page 559 : 18.“7. … It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.” 13. In the said judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been categorically laid down that whenever a vast extent of land were applied for fixing its market value with that of the value of lesser extent in the same area, 1/3rd of its value has to be deducted towards the developmental charges and expenditure. It has been contended before the lower appellate court by the claimants that the acquired land was already located in the area where houses have sprang up and there are police station, Government Hospital, Government Higher Secondary School and Sub-Registrar Office and other amenities for the public are also available. It was also contended before the lower appellate court that the property acquired was already even, and without any ups and downs and therefore, the lower appellate court had also applied the same value without any deductions. The said value taken by the lower appellate court is not correct, since the development ofany house site from a larger extent of land will not be restricted only with the levelling of the land, but also leaving space and laying of road to the said house sites. The said value taken by the lower appellate court is not correct, since the development ofany house site from a larger extent of land will not be restricted only with the levelling of the land, but also leaving space and laying of road to the said house sites. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to deduct 1/3rd of its value is quite justifiable in this case. Therefore, the actual value as fixed by the lower appellate court for one cent of land at Rs.2,180/- has to be deducted with 1/3rd ratio i.e., equivalent to Rs.727/- per one cent. After such deduction of 1/3rd of the value, the actual value for one cent would be at Rs.1,453/-. The lower appellate court ought to have fixed the enhancement of compensation at Rs.1,453/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred and fifty three only). But it had not adopted such method as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is liable to be interfered and modified. 14. In the foregoing circumstances, I am of the considered view that the market value as fixed by the lower appellate court at Rs.2,180/- is liable to be reduced to Rs.1,453/-(Rupees one thousand four hundred and fifty three only) per one cent and the respondents / claimants are entitled to get the said value per one cent along with other benefits allowable under the provisions of the relevant Land Acquisition Act, i.e., Act 31 of 1978. 15. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents did not pay the requisite court fee before the lower appellate court for the enhanced compensation and in such circumstances, the appeal itself was not maintainable. The non-payment of court fee is merely an irregularity and it can be set aside at any time when it was pointed out. The first appellate court ought to have directed the respondents / appellants / claimants before it to pay court fee on the enhanced compensation, but it failed to do so. In the said circumstances, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the respondents / claimants to pay appropriate court fee payable to the enhanced compensation as fixed before the lower appellate court. In the said circumstances, it has become necessary for this Court to direct the respondents / claimants to pay appropriate court fee payable to the enhanced compensation as fixed before the lower appellate court. The Registry is directed to draft the decree only after the payment of appropriate court fee before the lower appellate court, after it has been calculated by the Registry of this Court. 16. With the aforesaid modification, the Second Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. 06.02.2012.