Judgment Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme, Coimbatore, has preferred the appeal challenging the judgment dated 30.4.2003 in L.A.O.P. No. 170 of 1988 and reviewed on 24.11.2004 in I.A. No. 606 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. 2. Pursuant to the Notification dated 13.10.1976 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, ‘Act’], the lands of the respondents/claimants which were situated in S. Nos. 163/1, 163/2 and 164, Chikkadasamalayam Village, to an extent of 10.82 Acres, were acquired for construction of houses for the Low Income Group (LIG) by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) Unit, Coimbatore. After conducting enquiry under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, ‘Act’], an Award came to be passed on 14.8.1979 in L.A. No. 5/74-A10 and Award No. 3/79 acquiring the land of the respondents/claimants. 3. The Acquiring authority fixed the compensation at Rs.201.67 per cent and since the aggrieved respondents objected to the low rate of compensation, the matter was referred for determination of market value by the Reference Court and registered as L.A.O.P. No. 170 of 1988. 4. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the claimants, C.W.1 was examined and Exs. C.1 to C.8 were filed. On the side of the Acquiring authority, the then Special Tahsildar was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R .1 to R.10 were filed. Ex.R.1 is the Award while Exs. R.2 and R.4 are Topo Sketch and data sale deed respectively. 5. Learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Acquiring authority at the rate of Rs.201.67 was very low and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7000/- per cent. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal is filed. 6. The grounds set out in the memo of appeal are as follows:- (a) The Court below has failed to note that there are three documents marked on the side of the Claimants which are all smaller extent of land which cannot be taken into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired land when it is in acreage. (b) The Court below has failed to give proper deductions towards the smallerness comparison when the land on acquisition is in acreage where the documents relied on by the Court below is only a smaller extent of land. (b) The Court below has failed to give proper deductions towards the smallerness comparison when the land on acquisition is in acreage where the documents relied on by the Court below is only a smaller extent of land. (c) The Court has erred in not giving any deductions towards the developmental charges whereas the land acquired is for the purpose of housing scheme. 7. It is seen from the records that the acquiring authority has taken note of sale transactions dated 22.02.1975 in S. No. 160/1B in Chikkadasampalayam, an extent of 7 Cents. The respondents/claimants on whose behalf C.W.1 was examined, had deposed that (a) there was a steep appreciation in the land costs in that area being within the Municipal Corporation limits of Mettupalayam; (b) the lands are on the eastern side and adjacent to Ooty – Coimbatore Main Road; (c) adjacent to S. No. 164, there is Chinnammal’s lay out and co-operative colony with houses; (d) on the west of acquired lands, Telephones Office is situate; (e) opposite to the same, K.K. Nagar Colony is situate; (f) Rosari High School is situate adjacent to the acquired land; (g) on the North of acquired land, there is a Boys’ High School and two more High Schools are situate on the east; (h) within a range of 1 Km, there are Theatre, Petrol Bunk, Registrar Office, Forest Range, Central Bus Stand are situate; (i) S. Nos. 163/1, 163/2 and 164 are already developed areas; (j) as per Ex. C.4, the acquired lands were already laid out; and (k) as per sale deed dated 31.5.1976, where an extent of 4¾ Cents are sold, the rate was fixed at Rs.7000/- per cent. 8. On the side of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined, who has deposed as follows:- "Tamil” 9. The Reference Court, on appreciating the evidence in paragraph 11, found that Exs. C.6 to C.8 are sale deeds which can be considered and arrived at an average sale value of Rs.7000/- per cent, which this Court feels is correct. 10. Learned Additional Government Pleader argued that development charges have not been deducted from the Award amount. It is seen from the records and as admitted by R.W.1, that the lands have already become house sites and many colonies and houses are situate surrounding the acquired land. As per Ex.C.4, already the acquired land was laid out which is not denied by R.W.1. It is seen from the records and as admitted by R.W.1, that the lands have already become house sites and many colonies and houses are situate surrounding the acquired land. As per Ex.C.4, already the acquired land was laid out which is not denied by R.W.1. 11. The contention that the exemplars relied on were sale of small plots of land and cannot be taken note of, does not stand to scrutiny. In Rishi Pal Singh and others vs. Meerut Development Authority and another ( 2006 (3) SCC 205 ), it has been held that while there is acquisition of vast track of land, the exemplars of small plots can be considered for determining the market value. Even the data sale deed relied on by the appellant is also of a smaller extent. Therefore, exemplars of sale of small plots can be considered after assessing the other relevant particulars. In this case, the Reference Court has only taken the average of the lowest value from the claimants’ documents, which does not require any interference. 12. Insofar as the deduction towards development charges is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 554 held that the deduction towards development charges cannot be made in a straight jacket formula and should depend on the facts of each case. 13. Reference is also made to Nelson Fernandes and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others reported in 2007 (9) SCC 447 wherein it is held that while determining the amount towards development charges, the purpose for which the land acquired is relevant to decide as to whether any deduction for development charges at all can be made. In the present case, the lands are acquired for housing. It is an admitted fact that the lands were already used as house sites and do not require any further deduction towards development charges. Development necessarily means providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads, adjoining pavements, electricity sub-station, street lights, telecommunication tower, etc. Additional developments like educational institution, dispensaries, hospitals, police station, etc. are all admittedly already available there. It is not the case of the appellants that in the lands acquired, there are hillocks that need to be levelled or low lying land that need to be filled up. Additional developments like educational institution, dispensaries, hospitals, police station, etc. are all admittedly already available there. It is not the case of the appellants that in the lands acquired, there are hillocks that need to be levelled or low lying land that need to be filled up. Therefore, when such indispensable amenities are already available, the deduction need not be done. In the case on hand, the land owners themselves have lost heavily on account of compulsory acquisition of potential house sites as the lands are already developed. 14. In A. Natesam Pillai vs. Tahsildar (LA), Trichy, (2010) 9 SCC 118 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 20 to 22, has observed as follows:- Para20: "This building potentiality of acquired land must also be taken into consideration while determining compensation. In P. Ram Reddy v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, 1995 (2) SCC 305 , this Court held as follows: “8. Building potentiality of acquired land.—Market value of land acquired under the LA Act is the main component of the amount of compensation awardable for such land under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. The market value of such land must relate to the last of the dates of publication of notification or giving of public notice of substance of such notification according to Section 4(1) of the LA Act. Such market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. Possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, of becoming available for better use in the immediate or near future, is regarded as its potentiality. It is for this reason that the market value of the acquired land when has to be determined with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, the same has to be done not merely with reference to the use to which it was put on such date, but also on the possibility of it becoming available in the immediate or near future for better use i.e. on its potentiality. When the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future it is such potentiality which is regarded as building potentiality of the acquired land. Therefore, if the acquired land has the building potentiality, its value, like the value of any other potentiality of the land should necessarily be taken into account for determining the market value of such land. Therefore, when a land with building potentiality is acquired, the price which its willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from its willing purchaser with reference to the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, ought to necessarily include that portion of the price of the land attributable to its building potentiality. Such price of the acquired land then becomes its market value envisaged under Section 23(1) of the LA Act. If that be the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, which acquired land could be regarded to have a building potentiality and how the market value of such acquired land with such building potentiality requires to be measured or determined are matters which remain for our consideration now.” (emphasis supplied) Para 21: This Court in HasanaliKhanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat 1995 (5) SCC 422 also held that: “3. … But it is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that the court is not like an umpire but is required to determine the correct market value after taking all the relevant circumstances, evinces active participation in adduction of evidence; calls to his aid his judicial experience; evaluate the relevant facts from the evidence on record applying correct principles of law which would be just and proper for the land under acquisition. It is its constitutional, statutory and social duty. The court should eschew aside feats of imagination but occupy the armchair of a prudent, willing but not too anxious, purchaser and always ask the question as to what are the prevailing conditions and whether a willing purchaser would as a prudent man in the normal market conditions offer to purchase the acquired land at the rates mentioned in the sale deeds. After due evaluation taking all relevant and germane facts into consideration, the court must answer as to what would be the just and fair market value.” (emphasis supplied) Para 22: Therefore, it is clear from the aforementioned decisions of this Court that the potentiality of the acquired land, insofar as it relates to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration. The present acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started. The evidence on record also clearly indicates that the acquired land is abutting the main road. The acquired land is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat Union Office, shops and residential buildings on all three sides. The High Court also found, as a matter of fact, that the area where the acquired land is situated is fit for construction of houses. On an overall consideration and appreciation of the records, we feel that the deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land when compared with the land in Ext. A-3 from the point of view of potential value." 15. In the above circumstances, the appeal is misconceived and we are not inclined to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Reference Court made in L.A.O.P. No. 170 of 1988 and the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.