Judgment : This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree order dated 10.07.2007 passed in LA.C.M.A.No.10/97 by the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in LA.C.M.A.No.10 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam filed by the respondent for enhancement of compensation for his land acquired by the petitioner. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam by judgment dated 10.07.2007, enhanced the compensation. Against the said judgment, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. The facts of the case are as follows:- The land to an extent of 0.56.5 Hec., in Survey Nos.3109/1A2B in Thamaraikulam Bit Village, belonging to the respondent was acquired for the purpose of granting free house sites to families of Adi Dravidars. The respondent did not object to the acquisition, but objected the quantum of compensation fixed by the petitioner. After enquiry, the petitioner fixed the rate at Rs.68051.02/- per hec., and awarded a sum of Rs.38448.82/- for 0.56.5 hec., and 15% solatium of Rs.5767.32/- in toto, a sum of Rs.44216/-. 5. The respondent filed LA.C.M.A.No.10 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31/1978, for enhancement of compensation. According to the respondent, the acquired land is very near to main road, Jeyaraj Annapakiyam College and Houses are primary Co-operative employees. He also produced two sale deeds to show that the lands near to the acquired lands were sold for Rs.7848/- and Rs.7446/- per cent respectively. He examined himself as P.W.1 and one Murugan as P.W.2 and marked two sale deeds as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The petitioner examined one Karuppiah as D.W.1 and marked price fixation details and certificate of land value for the acquired land as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. 6. The learned Judge considering the pleadings, evidence and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, enhanced the compensation as Rs.3000/- per cent, 30% solatium and 12% of market price from the date of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the order passed. The amount already received by the respondent has to be deducted. 6. The learned Judge considering the pleadings, evidence and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, enhanced the compensation as Rs.3000/- per cent, 30% solatium and 12% of market price from the date of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the order passed. The amount already received by the respondent has to be deducted. The learned Judge granted 9% interest p.a., if the balance amount deposited into the Court within one year, failing which, 15% interest p.a., from the date of expiry of one year till the amount deposited with proportionate cost and the trial Court also directed the respondent to pay batta to the Government. Against the said judgment, the present civil revision petition is filed. 7. Mr.G.Muthukannan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that:- (i) the learned Judge erred in fixing compensation relying on sale deeds in respect of house sites. This compensation was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per cent, without any basis and arbitrarily (ii) The learned Judge failed to see that the Acquisition Officer collected the various sale deeds are relied on the relevant sale deed for fixing the compensation for the acquired lands. (iii) The Acquisition Officer took note of nature of land and after due enquiry fixed the value of land and arrived at compensation payable to the respondent. (iv) The learned Judge ought to have seen that the respondent did not produce any document during enquiry and one or two persons would have purchased small extent nearly acquired land out of necessity for a higher price. (v) The learned Judge failed to deduct 1/3rd of value of land as developmental charges. (vi) The learned Judge has failed to consider the guide-lines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. For the above reasons, prayed for allowing the civil revision petition. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned Judge properly considered all the facts especially the fact that the land was acquired to allot the same as house sites to families of Adi Dravidars. The respondent has produced sale deeds of nearby lands, which were sold as house sites and has proved by oral evidence that nearby number of houses are constructed, Jeyaraj Annapakiyam College and main road are nearby acquired land. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 9. The respondent has produced sale deeds of nearby lands, which were sold as house sites and has proved by oral evidence that nearby number of houses are constructed, Jeyaraj Annapakiyam College and main road are nearby acquired land. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petition. 9. I have heard Mr.G.Muthukannan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and carefully perused the entire materials on record. 10. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has awarded compensation for the acquired land as dry land. The respondent had produced sale deeds to prove that nearby lands are sold as house sites. Further, the land had been acquired for allotting house sites to Adi Dravidars. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the acquired land as dry land is not correct. The respondent claimed Rs.7,000/- per cent on the ground that Jeyaraj Annapakiyam College and House of employees of Primary Co-operative Bank are nearby acquired land, but he failed to prove the same. The learned Judge, considering the sale deeds produced by the respondent, fixed the value of Rs.3,000/- per cent. The learned Judge has given valid reasons for arriving at this value. There is no reason to set aside the amount of compensation fixed by the learned Judge. 11. The contention of the learned Government Advocate that the learned Judge failed to deduct 1/3rd amount for developmental charges is well founded. The larger extent of land had been acquired for allotting free house sites for Adi Dravidars. Necessary roads etc., are to be formed. Therefore, 1/3rd from Rs.3,000/- per cent fixed by the learned Judge is deducted for developmental charges. In other aspects, the judgment of the learned Judge is confirmed. In the result, the civil revision petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.