ORDER : 1.Leave granted. 2. The appeals have been preferred by the State of Haryana, as well as by the landowners. The State has come up in the appeal for questioning the compensation granted by the High Court and for the deduction to be made, whereas the landowners have come up in the appeals for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') is on 29.09.2005 and 15.12.2005 for villages Asoudha Todran and Mandothi, respectively, in District Jhajjar. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre. On the reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the reference court, after recording the evidence, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.14,24,996/- per acre for village Asoudha Todran, and Rs.14,69,052/- per acre for village Mandothi. 4. The High Court has relied upon the sale deed (P3) dated 6.6.2002, with respect to 8 kanals area, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. The High Court has given 15% increase, for three years, that too on a cumulative basis. The High Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.45,62,625/- per acre for both the aforesaid villages. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the High Court has erred in law in not applying the cut for the development, and in giving the 15% appreciation and that too on a cumulative basis. The area has to be deducted for the purpose of development, as has been laid down by this court, while considering a plethora of decisions, in Major General Kapil Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2015) 2 SC 262] in which this court has considered this question thus: “33. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board vs. Krishan Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297 , it was held as under: “10. It is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines.” 35. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines.” 35. Reiterating the rule of one-third deduction towards development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595 , this Court in paragraph 19 held as under:- “19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land in acquired. In Kasturi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 ) the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7) "7… It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character or a developed area. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character or a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. ( (2003)10 SCC 525 , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004)10 SCC 745 ” 36. While determining the market value of the acquired land, normally one-third deduction i.e. 33 1/3% towards development charges is allowed. One-third deduction towards development was Land in Tehsildar(L.A.) vs. A. Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218 ; Gulzara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SCC 245 ; Santosh Kumari vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 631 ; Revenue Divisional Officer & L.A.O. vs. Sk. One-third deduction towards development was Land in Tehsildar(L.A.) vs. A. Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218 ; Gulzara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SCC 245 ; Santosh Kumari vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 631 ; Revenue Divisional Officer & L.A.O. vs. Sk. Azam Saheb, (2009) 4 SCC 395 ; A.P. Housing Board vs. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010)12 SCC 707 ; Ashrafi vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 5 SCC 527 and Kashmir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 165 . 37. Depending on nature and location of the acquired land, extent of land required to be set apart and expenses involved for development, 30% to 50% deduction towards development was allowed in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board vs. Krishan Kumar (2011) 15 SCC 297 ; Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidua 2006 (12) SCC 87 ; Mummidi Apparao vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506 ; and Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 . 38. In few other cases, deduction of more than 50% was upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the case in Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640 , this Court upheld the deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi vs. State of Haryana (2008) 15 SCC 201 , deduction of 60% towards development charges was held to be legal. This Court in Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444 , held that deduction of 67% amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrasekhar vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 1 SCC 390 , deduction of 70% was upheld. 39. We have referred to various decisions of this Court on deduction towards development to stress upon the point that deduction towards development depends upon the nature and location of the acquired land. The deduction includes components of land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewage, electricity, parks and other common facilities and also deduction towards development charges like laying of roads, construction of sewerage.” 6.Considering the aforesaid aspect, we deem it appropriate to modify the determination made by the High Court to the extent that we deduct 25% of the area from the sale deed (P3), its value comes to Rs.22,50,000/- per acre, and then adding 15% appreciation on flat basis for three years, confined to the facts of this case. The amount comes to Rs.32,62,500/- per acre. Along with the amount of compensation awarded at the aforesaid rate the amount to carry the statutory benefits. The amount which has not been paid so far be paid within a period of three months from today. 7. The appeals filed by the State are allowed to the aforesaid extent, and that by the landowners are also accordingly disposed of.