JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23/01/1995 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 7 of 1994 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yeotmal. The facts of the case may be stated in brief as under : A piece of land ad-measuring 0.25 H.R. from Gat No. 153 of mouza Both, owned by original applicant Dattatray Uplenchwar, was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 07/11/1991. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of acquired land @ Rs.10,000/- per hectare. Since the acquired land had non agricultural potential, the original applicant felt that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and, therefore, an application for referring the matter for consideration of enhancement of compensation came to be moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was referred to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal. Upon reference of the application to the Civil Court, the application was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 7 of 1994. The reference was contested by the respondents. After considering the evidence and argument of both the sides, the Reference Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23/01/1995, partly allowed the reference application fixing market value of the acquired land @ Rs.4.32 per sq. ft. However, the compensation at this rate was granted after making 2/3rd deduction from the total acquired land. Being not satisfied with the same, the original applicant through his Lrs. is before this Court in this appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and decree and also the record of the case. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is: Whether the Reference Court was justified in making 2/3rd deduction from the total area of the acquired land for the purpose of granting enhancement of compensation? 3. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court that acquired land had non agricultural potential and also to the fact that it was acquired only for the purpose of development of road, the facts of the case did not justify making of 2/3rd deduction in this case. 3. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court that acquired land had non agricultural potential and also to the fact that it was acquired only for the purpose of development of road, the facts of the case did not justify making of 2/3rd deduction in this case. In reliance, the learned Counsel refers to the case of Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Chennai & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6774. 4. Shri Bhoyar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State submits that the trial Court has considered this aspect of the matter very minutely by thoroughly considering the evidence available on record and, therefore, 2/3rd deduction made in the impugned judgment and decree cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. He submits that the learned Civil Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4.32 per sq. ft. on the basis of comparable sale instance of a developed plot of land and, therefore, making of 2/3rd deduction on account of the land required to be left out for formation of roads, civic amenities, etc. and the cost to be incurred for developing the land for residential purposes was not illegal. The learned A.G.P. relied upon the case of Chandrashekar (dead) by Lrs. and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 390 . 5. While there is no dispute about determination of market value of the acquired land @ Rs.4.32 per sq. ft., the rival parties have seriously debated over making of 2/3rd deduction by the trial Court. According to the appellant, the facts of the case did not justify making of such deduction and in the estimate of learned A.G.P. for the respondent, such deduction is perfect having regard to the evidence available on record. 6. The acquired land had non agricultural potential, which is sufficiently established by the evidence brought on record by the appellant. But, this land was an undeveloped piece of land and if it had to be developed for the residential purposes, certainly some area from the land would have to be reserved for developing roads, civic amenities and so on and some expenses would also have to be incurred on account of levelling of the land and raising of necessary infrastructure. But, this land was an undeveloped piece of land and if it had to be developed for the residential purposes, certainly some area from the land would have to be reserved for developing roads, civic amenities and so on and some expenses would also have to be incurred on account of levelling of the land and raising of necessary infrastructure. Therefore, deduction on both these counts were required to be made and the learned Civil Judge, as seen from the impugned judgment and decree, made 1/3rd deduction on account of each of the said two components making the total deduction to 2/3rd as a whole. 7. I do not see any illegality in such an approach adopted by the learned Civil Judge, when the law in this regard is well settled. In the case of Chandrashekar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering various precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that the deduction to be made in such a case, is required to be distributed in two components. The first component is; the area to be left out for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads, adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers, etc. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that apart from this, the land is also required to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. The second component is of deduction towards the expenditure to be made for providing and raising infrastructure and civic amenities referred to in the first component. The Hon'ble Apex Court, upon considering these two aspects of development of land having non agricultural potential, made deduction of 33 1/3 percent for each of the two components making total deduction as of 67%. 8. In the instant matter, the total deduction made is 2/3rd or 67 percent and it is on account of the afore stated two components of the development of undeveloped piece of land. Such deduction made by the learned Civil Judge cannot be seen as going against the well settled principles of law. Besides, it is also based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned A. G. P., 2/3rd deduction, made by the learned Civil Judge in this case, can not be seen as illegal or arbitrary in any manner. Besides, it is also based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned A. G. P., 2/3rd deduction, made by the learned Civil Judge in this case, can not be seen as illegal or arbitrary in any manner. 9. In the case of Radha Mudaliyar, the Honb'le Apex Court found deduction of more than 30% as prejudicial to the interest of the claimants. But, that was upon consideration of the facts and circumstances peculiar to that case and the evidence on record. In the instant case, the evidence available on record justified 2/3rd deduction to be made from the total area of the land acquired. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the decision in the said case of Radha Mudaliyar (supra) would not help the case of the appellant in any manner. 10. In the circumstances, I find that there is no substance in the appeal. The 2/3rd deduction directed to be made by the learned Civil Judge cannot be seen as illegal or arbitrary. The point is answered accordingly. The appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.