JUDGMENT : Both the appeals have been filed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputhur, challenging the judgement and decree dated 24.12.1997 made in LAOP Nos. 77 and 78 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur. 2. LAOP.No.77 of 1995 had been filed with respect to acquisition of lands for housing purposes for Adi Dravidars in S.No.440/2A/1B, measuring an extent of 1.13.5 hectares. The Land Acquisition Officer, by award dated 24.2.1995, had fixed the value of the land at Rs.171/- per cent. Originally proceedings had been preferred by the claimants, challenging the said award. LAOP No. 78 of 1995 had been filed, challenging the award with respect to the same survey number in S.No.440/2A/1B. The Applicant in LAOP No. 77 of 1995 was S. Karuppiah Nadar and the Applicant in LAOP No. 78 of 1995 was S. Gurusamy. 3. In both the land acquisition original proceedings, it had been stated that determination of the land value at Rs.171/- per cent by the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 24.2.1995 was very low. It had been stated that the lands had been converted into housing plots. They were situated in Chinnapottalpatti-Sivakasi Main Road. Housing quarters were within four furlongs. There are many factories surrounding the area. Six sale deeds had been produced for assistance in fixing the land value, which had been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. It had been further stated that the value of one cent was Rs.15,000/-. There was also a well. It had been therefore stated that the value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer should be revised. 4. Before the land acquisition Tribunal, the Land Acquisition Officer represented by the Special Tahsildar, had stated that 4(1) notification was issued on 24.2.1995. He had further stated that determination of the value of Rs.17,100/- per acre was a fair value. It had been further stated that development charges will have to be incurred in making the lands viable for housing purposes. It had been further stated that at the time of acquisition, there were no houses or factories surrounding the area. 5. On consideration of the rival pleadings, the land acquisition Tribunal had fixed the value of the land at Rs.2000/- per cent and had also awarded Rs.63,077/- as value for the Well and the Trees in the said area. 30% solatium was also granted. 5. On consideration of the rival pleadings, the land acquisition Tribunal had fixed the value of the land at Rs.2000/- per cent and had also awarded Rs.63,077/- as value for the Well and the Trees in the said area. 30% solatium was also granted. Interest was also granted at 9% per annum and in default, interest was granted at 15% per annum. Development charges was fixed at 1/4th of the value and consequently, they actual compensation granted was at Rs.1500/- per cent. These findings have been challenged by the Respondents in the said proceedings, namely, the Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi Dravidar, Virudhunagar. 6. The learned Government Advocate for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal had classified the lands as house sites without any basis. The learned Government Advocate further pointed out that there was no evidence to show that the lands can be sold as house plots. The learned Government Advocate also stated that deduction towards development charges should be at least 1/3rd of the value. The learned Government Advocate also stated that under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, interest ought to have been fixed at 6% per annum. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent supported the judgment of the court below and stated that as on date, the lands had developed and there were houses and factories and it is situated in the main road and the value of the land as fixed by the Tribunal was actually less. The learned counsel also pointed out that the acquisition was under the Central Act and not under the State Act and consequently, the interest as awarded by the Tribunal should be upheld. 8. I have carefully considered the rival arguments. 9. The disputed lands, which have been acquired for Adi Dravidar Welfare Housing Scheme, were situated in Maraneri Village in S.No.440/2A1/1B, measuring to an extent of 1.13.5 hectares and also included a Well. It was for the purpose of building houses for Adi Dravidars of Chinnapottalpatti Village. The Land Acquisition Officer had originally fixed the value at Rs.171/- per cent. This had been revised to Rs.2000/- per cent by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, whose judgment is being challenged in these appeals. 10. The land acquisition Tribunal had granted 1/4th deduction towards development charges and had finally fixed the value at Rs.1500/- per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had originally fixed the value at Rs.171/- per cent. This had been revised to Rs.2000/- per cent by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, whose judgment is being challenged in these appeals. 10. The land acquisition Tribunal had granted 1/4th deduction towards development charges and had finally fixed the value at Rs.1500/- per cent. It is seen from the records that even during the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the acquired lands were classified as housing plots. It is also seen that they are situated in the main road leading from Sivakasi to Chinnapottalpatti Village. There is also an ESI Hospital, Factories and other houses surround the area. It is also seen from the records that in Maraneri Village, there were more than twenty thousand houses, Offices and Banks. The area is very highly developed. There are many match factories which naturally led to increase in the land value. In this connection, it is also seen that the Tribunal had also adversely commented that a person with knowledge about the facts of the case had not been examined as a witness by the appellant and the witness, who had been examined on behalf of the Appellant, spoke only from the records. The Tribunal had also actually rejected the evidence led on behalf of the Appellant herein. 11. It is seen that to the South of the lands in Maraneri Village, in Vilampatti Village, there were nearly twenty thousand houses, Banks, Post Office and other such facilities. It has also been determined as a matter of fact that there were an ESI Hospital and also housing plots. There were also Sivakasi Housing Board tenements near the said area. There were also match factories and other factories surrounding the acquired lands. These had naturally increased the value of the land. Those six sale deeds had been taken for consideration which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. 12. With respect to Ex.A1, it was found that it was dated 28.4.1992 with respect to S.No.523/2B1 for an area of 28 cents and in S.No.523/2B2 for an area of 30 cents and the value given was Rs.1922 per cent. With respect to Ex.A2, it was a sale deed dated 11.6.1992 for S.No.456/5B for one acre 5 cents, out of which the sale deed was for 2 + cents and the rate per cent was Rs.3080/-. With respect to Ex.A2, it was a sale deed dated 11.6.1992 for S.No.456/5B for one acre 5 cents, out of which the sale deed was for 2 + cents and the rate per cent was Rs.3080/-. In Ex.A3, which is the sale deed dated 30.6.1992 for S.No.536/1C2 for an extent of 220 sq.ft, the rate per cent was Rs.1836/-. With respect to Ex.A4, it is the sale deed dated 29.7.1992 for S.No.456/5A3 for an area of 494.93 sq.ft and the value per cent was Rs.3070/-. With respect to Ex.A5, it is the sale deed dated 19.8.1992 for S.No.536/1B for an area of 1920 sq.ft. and the value for one cent was Rs.1836/-. In Ex.A6, which is the sale deed dated 15.10.1992 for S.No.130/7 for an area of 301 , sq.ft. the value of one cent was Rs.7172/-. All the said lands were situated very close to the acquired lands. However, it was found that the sale deeds were for a smaller area of land. It was also determined as a fact that the lands mentioned in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were more or less similar to the acquired lands and had the same physical features. It was based on these facts that the Tribunal had fixed Rs.2000/- per cent. The learned Government Advocate for the Appellant was not able to produce any contra evidence to dispute the said findings. However, the learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of this court reported in 2001 1 MLJ 698 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode Vs. Meenakshiammal (died) and others) wherein the Division Bench of this court had held that the development charges should be fixed at 33%. Taking into consideration this fact, I hold that the determination of the value of the land at Rs.2000/- per cent has to be upheld. However, the development charges has to be fixed at 33%, namely, a sum of Rs.666/- has to be deducted. This naturally means that the value per cent has to be revised to Rs.1334/- per cent. 13. In the result, this appeal suit is partly allowed to the extent that the value of the land per cent is revised and fixed at Rs.1334/-. In all other respects, the impugned judgment of the court below is confirmed. No costs.