JUDGMENT K Sreedhar Rao, J.: The land of appellant is acquired for the purpose of road widening between Hubli-Dharwad, near Navanagar area. The extent of land acquired is 32 guntas. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per gunta. The Reference Court has awarded Rs.70.50 per sq. ft., after giving deduction to an extent of 53% towards development charges. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking' enhancement of compensation. 2. The learned Government Advocate Sri. K.B. Adhyapak appearing for the respondents strenuously contend that the compensation awarded is sound and proper and it does not call for any enhancement. The deduction effected towards development charges is sound and proper. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that the land is acquired for the purpose widening of the road. The Highway Authority would become owner of the land to its every inch in the land unlike in housing layout, no part of the land is diverted towards civic amenities. In a case where small extent of land is acquired and the acquiring authority utilize the land fully for its purpose, there is need to give deduction towards development. In that regard the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atma Sing Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2008)2 SCC 568 . 4. Per contra, the Government advocate has referred the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2010)1 SCC 444, wherein it is held that the ratio laid down in Atma Sing's case will not have universal application and the ratio is restricted to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Atma Sing's case. 5. On thorough consideration of facts and evidence, we find that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Atma Sing's Case squarely applies to facts on hand. The extent of land acquired is hardly 32 guntas, which is only a small tract of land to which the possibility of development of housing layout requiring 50% of land to be kept open for civic amenities would not arise. The extent of land acquired is hardly 32 guntas, which is only a small tract of land to which the possibility of development of housing layout requiring 50% of land to be kept open for civic amenities would not arise. It is possible that the land acquired could be split conveniently into 3 or 4 larger plots and can be sold to private individuals by the owner without losing any land towards civic amenities and can get the value for the entire extent of land. In that context the deduction effected towards the development charges by Reference Court does not appear to be sound and proper. 6. The location of the land is immediately adjoining to Highway road, which was eventually widened by acquiring this land. Navanagar is a fully developed suburb of Hubli city. The land in question has got NA potentiality. In that view of the matter, the deduction of 53% effected towards development charges is set aside. Appellant is entitled to full value of the land acquired without deduction at Rs.50/- per sq.ft. with statutory benefits and interest. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed 7. The appellant is directed to make good the deficit Court fee, if any. Until then, the award need not be passed. Appeal is allowed.