JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Present Regular First Appeals No. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 and 67/2005, have been directed against common Award dated 1.12.2004 rendered by learned District Judge, Solan, HP in land reference petitions No. 1-S/4 of 2004, No. 2-S/4 of 2004, No. 3-S/4 of 2004, No. 4-S/4 of 2004 and No. 5-S/4 of 2004. Since all the appeals are directed against the same Award, same were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. “Key facts" necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake) for acquisition of 04-07-04 hectares of land situate in Mauja Srinagar, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for the construction of a housing colony on 13.12.2001. Notification was also published in the HP Rajpatra on 27.12.2001. 3. Some of the land owners objected to the acquisition of land claiming that the land was of a great value and compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakh per Bigha be paid. Land was subsequently got demarcated on the spot by the revenue field agency. A notice under Section 9 of the Act was served upon the land owners to file claims, if any, as regards the compensation qua the land being acquired. Two land owners namely Haminder Thakur and Ms. Mamta appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and pleaded that the land was near National Highway and close to Shimla and Solan. According to them, earlier land has been acquired by the respondent Board for setting up residential colony, which has led to appreciation of value of the land in question. A representative of the HP Housing and Urban Development Authority was also present. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.67/- per square metre for the acquired land vide Award dated 2.8.2003. Land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act, for enhancement of compensation amount and other benefits. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.67/- per square metre for the acquired land vide Award dated 2.8.2003. Land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act, for enhancement of compensation amount and other benefits. Learned District Judge Solan vide its Award dated 1.12.2004 enhanced the compensation and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.224.00 per square metre plus compulsory acquisition charges @ 30% plus increase @12% under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 27.12.2001 and interest and other statutory benefits. Hence, these appeals. 4. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate has vehemently argued that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is on the higher side. He has also argued that deduction ought to have been made under ‘development charges’. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the his clients were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.900 per square metre. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record and Award carefully. 7. PW-1 Bhagwan Singh tendered his evidence in the form of affidavit Ext. PA. He has produced on record sale deeds Exts. PA/1, PA/2, PA/3, copy of Awards Exts. PA/4 and PA/5 and copy of sale deed Ext. PA/6. According to the averments made in the affidavit, land was situate on upper side of Kalka- Shimla National Highway. Same was surrounded by roads. Land was adjacent to PWD Rest House, Electricity Board complex, residential colony and further land is situated in the heart of Kandaghat town, which has great value and can not be compared to a Ghasni. Railway station, civil hospital etc. were only 200 metres away from the land in question. There was State Laboratory, polytechnic etc. near the land. State capital, Shimla was at a distance of only 32 kms from the land in question. HP Housing Board has already acquired land in the year 1999. Value of land in question was Rs.10.00 Lakh per Bigha. 8. PW-2 Khyali Ram has also led his evidence in the form of affidavit Ext. PB. He has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Shri Bhagwan Singh. 9. PW-3 Narain Singh Thakur has also filed an affidavit in his evidence, which is Ext. PW-3/A. 10. Value of land in question was Rs.10.00 Lakh per Bigha. 8. PW-2 Khyali Ram has also led his evidence in the form of affidavit Ext. PB. He has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Shri Bhagwan Singh. 9. PW-3 Narain Singh Thakur has also filed an affidavit in his evidence, which is Ext. PW-3/A. 10. RW-1 Devinder Kumar Tandon had led his evidence in the form of affidavit Ext. RA. He has produced on record copies of sale deed Ext. RA-1 to RA/3 and site plan Ext. RA/4. According to the averments contained in the affidavit, acquired land was away from National Highway. There was no possibility of construction of road for the acquired land. Shri Mohan Singh has sold 1084 square metres of land for Rs.17,500/- and per square metre value comes to Rs.21/-. Similarly on 9.6.1998 Shri Bhupender Singh has also sold land to Mamta Puri at the rate of Rs.36/- per square metre. On 21.7.2000 Mohal Singh sold land to Pritam Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- at the rate of Rs.59.50 per square metre. Out of total acquired land, only 40% of land was to be brought under construction and approximately 40% land was to be left for green belt and 20% of land was to be used for roads. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that 1 ½ years prior to acquisition of land, which is subject matter of present controversy, some land was acquired by Housing Board in the same locality. He also admitted that the land which was earlier acquired, roads were constructed therein. He has admitted that three buildings have been constructed. He also admitted that housing board has purchased land from Mr. N.K. Bansal at the rate of Rs.350/- per square metre. He has also admitted that they were making use of the roads on the land already acquired, for the purpose of carrying building material for raising construction on the land that was subject matter of the reference petitions. According to him, acquired property was at a distance of 1 km from Kandaghat. Office of SDM was at 1 ½ kms from Kandaghat Bazaar. He admitted that the acquired land was situate on one side and SDM office was on other side of the Kandaghat bazaar. He did not know for what purpose and under what circumstances, land vide Ext. RA/1 to RA/3 was purchased. Land sold through Ext. Office of SDM was at 1 ½ kms from Kandaghat Bazaar. He admitted that the acquired land was situate on one side and SDM office was on other side of the Kandaghat bazaar. He did not know for what purpose and under what circumstances, land vide Ext. RA/1 to RA/3 was purchased. Land sold through Ext. RA/1 was 500-600 metres from the acquired land. Land sold through Ext. RA/2 was at a distance of 400-500 metres from the acquired land and, the land sold through Ext. RA/3 was also 400-500 metres from acquired land. He has admitted categorically that acquired land was adjacent to the land that was acquired earlier. 11. According to Ext. PA1, Ext. PA2 and Ext. PA3, market value of the land was Rs.900 per square metre. According to Ext. PA6, market value of the land was Rs.250/- per square metre. As per Ext. PA/7, it was Rs.491/- per square metre and as per Ext. PB/5, it was Rs.592/- per square metre. According to RA/3, it was Rs. 60/- per square metre. Land owners have proved on record vide Ext. PA/5. Through this Award market value was determined at Rs.200/- per square metre. As per this Award, 1-70- 52 square metre land situate in Mauza Srinagar was notified on 7.5.1999 for public purpose i.e. construction of housing colony by the Housing Board. In the present case also the land has been acquired for the construction of housing board colony by the Housing Board. Land acquired in the present case was situate close to the land which had already been acquired in Ext. PA/5 on 7.5.1999. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 14.12.2001. Housing Board has purchased the land measuring 403 square meters at the rate of Rs.350/- on 20.11.2002 as per Ext. PA/6. This land is also abutting the acquired land. This land was purchased for the construction of approach road to housing board colony. Learned District Judge has correctly assessed market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.224/- per square metre. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate has vehemently argued that the compulsory deduction of atleast 30% was to be made while assessing market value. It is settled law that development charges are to be deducted but in the present case as per the statement of RW-1, roads have already been constructed and three buildings were already constructed. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate has vehemently argued that the compulsory deduction of atleast 30% was to be made while assessing market value. It is settled law that development charges are to be deducted but in the present case as per the statement of RW-1, roads have already been constructed and three buildings were already constructed. Roads already constructed, were being used for the purpose of carrying building/construction. It is not one of those cases where development has not taken place. Thus, no deduction could be made towards development charges. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has though vehemently argued that the market value of the land was Rs.900/- per square metre but he has not substantiated his arguments. There is no similarity between the potentiality of the land acquired in the present case and the parcels of land which were the subject matter of the sale deeds referred to by Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate. The learned District Judge has correctly taken into consideration the sale deeds, more particularly, Ext. PA/5 dated 11.3.2004 for awarding compensation to the land owners. On the basis of, Ext. PA/6, learned Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs.67/- per square metre. Learned District Judge has ordered to pay excess compensation of Rs.157/- per square metre plus statutory benefits. 12. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in J. Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, reported in AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 155, has held that since small pieces of land situate amidst of a developed area having facility of municipal roads on all four sides, no deductions were required to be made for development charges. It has been held as under: [7] We find force in the second of the submissions made by Mr. Narasimha Rao. The acquired land is less than half an acre being of the extent of 2,178 sq. Yards. We have earlier set out that the property is situated in the midst of a developed area and have the facility of municipal roads on all its four sides. There is no need for the appellant to invest any further amount for laying roads or providing other amenities. In respect of small area situated in such manner in the heart of the city, no deductions need be made to meet the expenses connected with laying of roads or providing other amenities. There is no need for the appellant to invest any further amount for laying roads or providing other amenities. In respect of small area situated in such manner in the heart of the city, no deductions need be made to meet the expenses connected with laying of roads or providing other amenities. A similar view was taken by a division bench of the madras High Court in Mohammad karimuddin v. Collector of madras (1965) 1 Mad LJ 66. The appellant will, therefore be entitled to claim the market value without making any deductions therefrom towards roads or other amenities. 13. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Spl. Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Collector reported in (1991) 4 SCC 506 have held that deduction of 1/3 amount as development charges can not be resorted to where land acquired is situate in already developed area. Their lordships have held as under: [7] In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant Notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally. a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. This principle has been stated by this Court in Tribeni Devi's case ( AIR 1972 SC 1417 ) (supra). a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. This principle has been stated by this Court in Tribeni Devi's case ( AIR 1972 SC 1417 ) (supra). [11] The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. [12] The national highway runs very near to the proposed Port-trust colony. The lands acquired already for the South Eastern Railway Staff Quarters lie to the southern side of the land under acquisition. The town planning trust road runs on the northern side of the land under acquisition. The colony is in the fast developing part of the municipal town. The plot of Ac. 1.68 cents in Survey No. 2/2A acquired for the formation of the diversion road is adjacent to built-in-area. The land involved in these cases is of even level and fit for construction without the necessity for levelling or reclamation. The High Court has itself concluded on the evidence that the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the southern railway staff quarters with the town planning trust road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, electricity etc., the deduction in the value of the comparable land is not warranted. [13] The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed. 14. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Tata Chemicals Limited, Bombay v. Sadhu Singh, reported in AIR 1994 Allahabad 66, has held that since one of the biggest industrial house of India was establishing a big fertilizer plant and there was no waiting period for the production to start and return was expected to be in thousands of crores of rupees. As such deduction of 20% price was not allowed. As such deduction of 20% price was not allowed. It is held as under: [21] The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a big Fetilizer Project. The factory would produce goods worth hundreds of crores in a year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a big factory. After all the factory cannot be set up without land if such land is giving return of hundreds of crores, there is no justification for making any reduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. Since the Project is being established by the Tatas, which is one of the biggest industrial house of the country, it can safely be presumed that there is no problem of finance and the factory must have been set up in a short time and the waiting period for the production to start would not have been a long one. There is a huge demand of fertilizer in the country so much so that the Government has to some time import the same and thus the market of the goods produced is fully assured. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of the residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevetheless where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods valued in hundreds of crores, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the principle enunciated by Supreme Court cases is not applicable. 15. In the present case also, Housing Board is constructing flats to be sold on commercial basis to the customers. No further investment is required to be made for the development of land. Thus, no deductions are required to be made towards development charges. 16. 15. In the present case also, Housing Board is constructing flats to be sold on commercial basis to the customers. No further investment is required to be made for the development of land. Thus, no deductions are required to be made towards development charges. 16. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Special Tahsildar v. Abdul Reguman reported in AIR 1996 Madras 198, has held that when land is situate in a fully developed area and requires no further development, reduction of 20% for pathway from the compensation amount was not permitted. It was held as under: [10] The claimants have filed eross objections stating that the deductions of 20% for pathway by the Subordinate Judge is not justifiable and arbitrary and also disproportionate to the acquired extent. According to Mr. Sivaji learned counsel for the claimant, the total claim of Rs. 1325/- per cent should have been awarded without any deduction either towards pathway or otherwise. Reliance was placed on Exhibits A.3 to A.5 and also the oral evidence of the claimants. Oral evidence of the claimants clearly proves that the land in question are situate in a developed area and, therefore, the houses can be straight-way built in lands acquired, and it does not require any further improvements or development. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the learned Subordinate Judge having found that the lands in question is within the Municipal Limits and having all the facilities namely, very near to the Bun-gaios, Gandhi Nagar Teacher's Colony, Cinema Theatre, Railway Station and Goodshed close to hospital, Thiruthangal road and Srivilliputhur road, Government Officers and the non-availability of vacant land within the Municipal limit erred in not awarding the lawful claim of the cross-objectors to entirety. We see much force in this contention. Learned Subordinate Judge in his order has not given any reasons for deducting 20% for pathway from and out of the market value fixed at Rs. 1325/-. We fail to understand as to why 20% deduction was made by the learned Subordinate Judge when there is ample evidence to show that the land acquired is situate in a fully developed area. On his own findings, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have noted the points and fixed the market value at Rs. 1325/- per cent without any deduction whatever. On his own findings, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have noted the points and fixed the market value at Rs. 1325/- per cent without any deduction whatever. The Supreme Court in Bhagwathulla Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) Supreme Court Cases 506 has observed as follows : "..... a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller polls within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction, However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factors. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purpose and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reasons that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified." In our view the observation made by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Admittedly, the land in question is already in a developed area and situated in an advantageous position and quite suitable for building purpose. It is also proved in evidence that the land in question has all the amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in deducting 20% from the market value. We therefore set aside that part of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, fixing the market value at Rs. 1325/- per cent -- Less 20%. The cross objection is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge is modified to this extent. 17. In view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.