JUDGMENT G. Chandraiah, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') against the order and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, dated 03.02.2007 in O.P. No. 5 of 2001. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Referring Officer as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants. 2. As could be seen from the material available on record, an extent of Ac. 1.93 cents of land in Sy. No. 55 situated in Dodagatta village, Roddam Mandal, belonging to the claimants, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of Dodagatta village vide notification dated 18.03.1999 published under Section 4(1) of the Act. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award No. 3/2000-2001, dated 05.05.2000, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. 3. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. In pursuance thereof, the Reference Court taken up the reference. On behalf of the claimants, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A11 were got marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W. 1 was examined, but no document was marked. The Reference Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, enhanced the compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,08,900/- per acre. The Reference Court awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12%. The Reference Court also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of taking possession till the date of payment on the enhanced market value. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation of the acquired land as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant/ Referring Officer preferred the appeal. Similarly, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the claimants preferred cross-objections for enhancement. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Referring Officer submitted that the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.20,000/- per acre to Rs.1,08,900/- per acre without any basis and evidence on record. Similarly, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the claimants preferred cross-objections for enhancement. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Referring Officer submitted that the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.20,000/- per acre to Rs.1,08,900/- per acre without any basis and evidence on record. The Reference Court ought to have seen that the L.A.O. had passed an award after taking into consideration previous three years sale transactions for fixing up the market value. He further submitted that the Reference Court, without taking into consideration the difference of land, fixed the value as per square yard basis instead of acreage basis. With these submissions, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court and confirm the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/Cross objectors submitted that the evidence of Land Acquisition Officer reveals that the acquired land is potential and considering the fact that the villagers have constructed houses in Sy. No. 239, adjoining to the acquired land, the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre as claimed by the claimants. He further submitted that the Reference Court having given a categorical finding that the land is potential for house sites and having accepted Rs.30/- per square yard as per Exs. A2 and A3 of the year 1997, ought to have enhanced the compensation for the lands acquired during the years 2000-2001. He further submitted that since the acquired land was well developed with all amenities, the Reference Court ought not to have deducted 1/4th in the gross value of the land acquired for the purpose of providing amenities. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot v. State of Punjab 2012 ALT (Rev.) 252 (SC) : 2012 (4) SCJ 853 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 ; Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa 2011 ALT (Rev.) 262 (SC) : 2011 (3) SCJ 81 : (2010) 13 SCC 710 ; Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana 2014 ALT (Rev.) 35 (SC) (2014) 2 SCC 165 and Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal 2011 (5) SCJ 245 L (2011) 6 SCC 47 . 7. 7. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the judgment and decree of the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is sustainable or not? (2) Whether the Cross-objections filed by the respondents/claimants need to be allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court? 8. There is no dispute with regard to the extent of Ac. 1-93 cents of land in Sy. No. 55 situated at Dodagatta village, Roddam Mandal, that was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award bearing No. 3/2000-01 dated 05.05.2000 determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. However, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,08,900/- per acre as against the claim of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. 9. From a perusal of Ex. A-1/Field Map, it discloses that a road is situated towards west and south of the acquired land. Ex. A1/Field Map further shows existence of a school in the land bearing Sy. No. 263 and also S.C. colony in the land bearing Sy. No. 238, which is situated just opposite to the land in Sy. No. 55. Therefore, the acquired land was having potentiality for being development to house sites, as such, it is bounded with roads on two sides and residential areas are just opposite to the acquired land and also a school building is situated in the land just opposite to the acquired land. On perusal of Ex. A3, which is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 27.11.1997, it discloses that 90 square yards of land was sold for an amount of Rs.2,670/-, which comes to Rs.29-60 paise per square yard approximately. The Reference Court rightly observed that the sale deed under Ex. A-3 was executed earlier to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 18.03.1999 and such it cannot be said that Ex. A3 was executed for the purpose of claiming more compensation with regard to the acquisition of the land in question. Further, on perusal of Ex. A-2/Valuation Certificate, it discloses that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.30/- per square yard. A3 was executed for the purpose of claiming more compensation with regard to the acquisition of the land in question. Further, on perusal of Ex. A-2/Valuation Certificate, it discloses that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.30/- per square yard. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30-00 per square yard. 10. The Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust case (1 supra) held as under: "19. This Court has time and again granted 10% to 15% increase per annum. In Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh ( (1992) 4 SCC 659 ) this Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher compensation. In DDA v. Bali Ram Sharma ( (2004) 6 SCC 533 ) this Court considered a batch of appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for grant of higher compensation. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel ( (2008) 14 SCC 745 ) this Court held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land is situated in rural areas, increase can be between 5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India v. Harpat Singh ( (2009) 14 SCC 375 ), this Court applied the rule of 10% increase per annum. 20. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants' land would come to Rs.1,82,000/- per acre as on the date of notification." 11. The Apex Court in Anjani Molu Dessai case (2 supra) held as follows: 16. The Land Acquisition Collector however committed a serious error in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30.8.1989 towards the cost of development. It is well settled that deduction for development cost has to be made only where the value of a small residential/commercial/industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for arriving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. It is well settled that deduction for development cost has to be made only where the value of a small residential/commercial/industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for arriving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and the acquired lands are both of similar nature (as in this case where both are bharad lands) the question of making any deduction towards development cost to arrive at the cost of 'undeveloped land' would not arise. Such a deduction would have been necessary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developed residential or commercial plot. Therefore, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in making 45% deduction from the price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30.8.1989. 17. The sale deed relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector was dated 30.8.1989. The relevant date for determination of compensation is 30.7.1991. Having regard to the fact that acquired lands were in an urbanisable area with readily available infrastructural facilities, we are of the view that the cumulative increase of 14.5% per annum adopted by the Collector in his award, would be appropriate. By providing such increase, for two years, we would be able to arrive at the market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of the preliminary notification. By providing such appreciation at 14.5% for two years on the base price of Rs.43.80 per square metre the market value as on 30.7.1991 for the acquired bharad lands would be Rs.57.42, rounded off to Rs.57.50 per square metre." 12. The Apex Court in Kashmir Singh's se (3 supra) held as under: "13. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420 per square yard. The Court had applied the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land and on that basis fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520 per square yard after taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350 per square yard in the year 1993. The relevant portion of the judgment, in this behalf reads as under: (Ashrafi v. State of Haryana ( (2013) 5 SCC 527 ), SCC pp. 543-44, para 50) "50. The relevant portion of the judgment, in this behalf reads as under: (Ashrafi v. State of Haryana ( (2013) 5 SCC 527 ), SCC pp. 543-44, para 50) "50. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Haryana, acquired for utilization and development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector 3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil Appeals Nos. 319-52 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLPs (C) Nos. 26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in para 25, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.1,81,200 per acre along with statutory benefits. The Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.206/- per square yard. The High Court modified the said award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.260/- per square yard for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 metres abutting National Highway 10. The value of the rest of the acquired land was maintained at Rs.206/- per square yard. The area in question being already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on the value is, in our view, excessive. We agree with Mr. Swarup that resorting to the belting system by the High Court was improper and that at best a standard cut of one-third would have been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits produced. It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup that on a comparative basis, the price of lands in the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs.420/- per square yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would have doubled to about `800/- per square yard by 1993. Even if we have to apply the formula of 12% increase, the valuation of the lands in question in 1993 would be approximately Rs.527/- per square yard. Imposing a deduction of one third , valuation comes to about Rs.350/- per square, which, in our view, would be the proper compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and other connected matters." 14. Imposing a deduction of one third , valuation comes to about Rs.350/- per square, which, in our view, would be the proper compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and other connected matters." 14. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, up to the year 2001 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant case. However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to 2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land rates. Therefore, we would like to enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking the entire period from 1993 to 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent). When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to Rs.770/- per square yard. After making a deduction of one-third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard. Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed at Rs.350/- per square yard, we have increased the same by about 50% over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We, accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the appellants." 13. The Apex Court in Trishala Jain's case (4 supra) held as under: "80. The cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record is that it is a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities and further development activity was going on in nearby areas. It was also submitted by the claimants that plotting has already been done on the acquired land and some plots of land have been sold immediately prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was also submitted by the claimants that plotting has already been done on the acquired land and some plots of land have been sold immediately prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is evident that the land acquired had the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes and as already noticed, the same was acquired for construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute. Therefore, it is a case where the Court should apply minimal deduction which will meet the ends of justice and would help in determining just and fair compensation for the land in question. We are of the considered view that 10% deduction from the market value of the acquired land would meet the ends of justice." 14. The aforesaid case law relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents/ Cross Objectors has no relevance to the case on hand. In the present case on hand, the land acquired is situated in the village and hence the Reference Court has rightly deducted 1/4th in the gross value of the land acquired for the purpose of providing amenities. The Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard awarded compensation at Rs.1,08,900/- per acre after taking a deduction of 1/4th from the total gross value of the land. 15. Having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Reference Court, we are of the opinion that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Reference Court and that the appeal and the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Land Acquisition Appeal Suit and the cross-objections are dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.