JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. Though these matters are posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal. 2. These appeals by the Land Acquisition Officer & Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, Mangalore, are directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 30/03/2010 passed in LAC Nos. 9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 77/1997, 38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998, 63/1997, 18/1997, 8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. 3. The Reference Court, by its common judgment and award, has fixed the market value in respect of the lands in question at Rs. 8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant has presented these appeals, on the ground that, the market value fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 8,000/- per cent is on higher side and is liable to be reduced by modifying the same. 4. Lands bearing Sy. No. 76/3B, measuring 2 acres 08 cents; Sy. No. 74/2 measuring 10 acres 87 cents; Sy. Nos. 135/7A3 measuring 1 acre 20 cents & 135/7B measuring 35 cents and in all, measuring 1 acre 55 cents; Sy. Nos. 191/2A1B, 2A2B, 1B2, 1A2 and 114/1B2 in all measuring 1 acre 76 cents; Sy. No. 74/2 measuring 10 acres 87 cents; Sy. Nos. 135/5, 135/4, 129/B, 135/2B, 23/18 in all measuring 6 acres 64 cents; Sy. No. 76/3A measuring 1 acre 39 cents; Sy. No. 76/3F measuring 2 acres 50 cents; Sy. No. 19/1A1A1 measuring 1 acre 25 cents; Sy. No. 76/3F measuring 2 acres 50 cents; Sy. No. 114/1B2 measuring 63 cents and Sy. No. 191/1A2 measuring 1 acre 13 cents, in all, 1 acre 76 cents; Sy. No. 114/1B2 measuring 91 cents and Sy. No. 191/1B2 measuring 2 acres 40 cents, situated at Malavoor, Adyapady and Kolambe villages, belonging to the claimants have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second Run way and Terminal Complex/tower for Mangalore Airport vide Preliminary notification dated 1.1.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act, followed by Final Notification issued under Section6(1) of L.A. Act. Thereafter, notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued inviting objections and claim from the notified kathedars and then the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award, fixing the market value at Rs. 250/- to Rs. 450/- per cent. Not being satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants have filed applications under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act seeking enhancement and requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court. Accordingly, the applications have been referred to II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, D.K. and registered as LAC Nos. 9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 77/1997, 38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998, 63/1997, 18/1997, 8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively. 5. The said matters had come up for consideration before the Reference Court, which in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, taking into consideration the purpose for which the lands have been notified and acquired, following the judgment passed by the Apex Court and this Court and placing reliance on Ex. P5 wherein, the price of each cent of land is sold at Rs. 10,000/-, after deducting 20% towards development charges, has fixed the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act and accordingly, allowed the said petitions. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and award, the appellant has presented these appeals, on the ground that, the Reference Court has erred in not following the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 16/1997 and erred in relying on Ex. P5-copy of sale deed, wherein, the price of each cent of land is sold at Rs. 10,000/- and in deducting 20% towards development charges instead of 1/3rd as held by the Apex Court in hosts of judgment. 6. The submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Reference Court has committed an error, much less material irregularity in fixing the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per cent relying on Ex. P5 - certified copy of the sale deed in respect of the small extent of land situated at Malavoor village, after deducting 20% towards development charges out of Rs. 10,000/- per cent, without considering the judgment and award passed by the same Court in LAC No. 116/1997, wherein, the market value was fixed at Rs. P5 - certified copy of the sale deed in respect of the small extent of land situated at Malavoor village, after deducting 20% towards development charges out of Rs. 10,000/- per cent, without considering the judgment and award passed by the same Court in LAC No. 116/1997, wherein, the market value was fixed at Rs. 5,600/- per cent in respect of the lands which have been notified and acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation to the families displaced by the acquisition of land for the purpose of second run way to Mangalore. To substantiate her submission, she submitted placing reliance on paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and another etc. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4591 that, in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has deducted 1/3rd towards development costs. Further, she submitted placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1/3/2014 passed in M.F.A. No. 29/2013 (Executive Engineer Vs. S.N. Jayaram) and connected matter, that, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court by modifying the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants, inter-alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and particularly, Ex. P5, copy of the sale deed in respect of the land belonging to the same village. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the lands in question have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of second runway and terminal for Mangalore airport and the entire lands have been utilized for the purpose for which they have been notified and acquired. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly accepted the submission made by learned counsel appearing for claimants and placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Karwar Vs. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly accepted the submission made by learned counsel appearing for claimants and placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Karwar Vs. Smt. Kamala Bail, Kom., Laxman Metri) reported in 1997 (3) K.L.J. 673 (FB) and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file and also taking into consideration the nature of soil, its potentiality and geographical area and after assigning valid reasons, has justified in determining the market value at Rs. 10,000/- per cent and after deducting 20% towards development charges, has fixed the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of the L.A. Act and therefore, it does not call for interferences. 8. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, it emerges that, large extent of lands situated at Malavoor, Adyapady and Kolambe villages, including the lands belonging to the claimants have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second Runway and terminal complex for Mangalore airport, following due procedures as envisaged under relevant provisions of L.A. Act. Thereafter, Land Acquisition officer has passed the award fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 250 to Rs. 450 per cent. Not being satisfied with the same, claimants have filed their applications under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act, for enhancement of compensation with a request to refer the same to the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, those applications were referred to the Reference Court. Thereafter, the Reference Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has allowed the said petitions and fixed the market value at Rs. 8,000/- per cent after deducting 20% out of Rs. 10,000/- towards development charges with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act. 9. It is the specific case of the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant that, Reference Court has erred in not assigning valid reasons in para-17 of its judgment for deducting 20% towards development charges out of Rs. 10,000/- per cent determined as market value of the lands in question placing reliance on Ex. 9. It is the specific case of the learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant that, Reference Court has erred in not assigning valid reasons in para-17 of its judgment for deducting 20% towards development charges out of Rs. 10,000/- per cent determined as market value of the lands in question placing reliance on Ex. P5, wherein a small extent of land has been sold at Rs. 10,000/- per cent. The Reference Court ought to have taken the average of Exs. P2 to P5 - registered sale deeds and determined the market value and after deducting 1/3rd towards development charges instead of 20%, ought to have fixed the market value in respect of the lands in question. The learned Government Pleader appearing for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and another etc. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4591, wherein, the Apex Court placing reliance on the judgment in A.P. Housing Board Vs. K. Manohar Reddy, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 707 and in the case of Subh Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444 as referred in para-19, has held as under: The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.,) then the development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost. Further, the Apex Court has held in para-21 of its judgment as under: 21. The first error committed by the High Court relates to deduction of 40% towards development charges. While doing so, the High Court ignored its own finding that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of the residential colonies developed by the Board and other establishments as also the fact that the respondents had not produced any evidence to show that they will have to start the development work from scratch. Therefore, the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3rd deduction towards development cost. Therefore, the High Court could have, at best, applied 1/3rd deduction towards development cost. In the instant case, the lands in question have been notified and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of Second Run way and terminal for Mangalore airport and as the lands are situated in hilly area and they are suitable for construction of Second Run way having regard to less traffic and development in around the said area. It is significant to note that, the lands in question have been utilized for the purpose for which they have been acquired and the amount spent towards its development would be on higher side. Taking all these relevant factors into consideration and having regard to the nature of soil, potentiality and its geographical area and in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we can safely deduct 30% towards development charges out of Rs. 10,000/- determined by the Reference Court as market value instead of 20% as deducted by it, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Valliyammal's case to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the appellant as well as the claimants. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, specifically taking into consideration the reasoning given by the Reference Court in Paras. 16, 17 and 18 of its judgment, we hold that, 30% should be deducted towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court to meet the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the, appeals filed by the appellant are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 30/03/2010 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, so far as it relates to LAC Nos. 9/1998, 12/1997, 23/1998, 14/1997, 77/1997, 38/1997, 94/1997, 84/1997, 12/1998, 63/1997, 18/1997, 8/1997 & 96/1997 respectively, is hereby modified, by deducting 30% towards development charges instead of 20% as deducted by the Reference Court and re-fixing the market value at Rs. 7,000/- per cent instead of Rs. 8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act and this will not be a precedent to other cases. 7,000/- per cent instead of Rs. 8,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits as envisaged under Section 23 of L.A. Act and this will not be a precedent to other cases. In view of disposal of main matters on merits, I.A. No. 3/2011 in M.F.A. No. 4361 of 2011, I.A. No. 2/2011 in M.F.A. No. 4348 of 2011, I.A. No. 3/2011 in M.F.A. No. 4363 of 2011. M.F.A. No. 4351 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4356 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4353 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4358 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4357 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4362 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4354 of 2011, M.F.A. No. 4352 of 2011, and M.F.A. No. 4360 of 2011 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off as having become infructuous. With the above observations, the appeals filed by the appellant are disposed of.