JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common question of law and fact arises for consideration in these appeals and cross-objections, they were taken up together for consideration and have been disposed of by way of a common judgment. 2. The appellants are the erstwhile owners of the land whose land have been compulsorily acquired whereas the respondents are the beneficiaries of the acquisition. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that after issuing the requisite notification as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’), the Collector assessed the market value of the land vide Award No. 2 of 2007, dated 30.03.2007 at the rate of Rs. 1453.57 paise per square metre i.e. Rs. 10,93,084/- per bigha. 4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the award the petitioners preferred the Reference Petitions which were allowed and they were held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1800/- per square metre irrespective of the classification of the land. 5. However, still aggrieved by the inadequate compensation as awarded by the learned Reference Court, the claimants have filed the instant appeals mainly on the ground that the learned Reference Court has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the acquired land had great potential for development into a residential colony as the area was abutting the National Highway and adjoining the acquired land, the land had already been developed by the government and, therefore, its market value are much more than Rs.1800/- per sq. metre. 6. On the other hand, the beneficiaries of the acquisition have preferred cross-objections assailing therein the award on the ground that since the land under acquisition was under-developed land, out of which 50% of the land had actually been utilised for construction whereas rest of 50% had been utilised for carrying out the development works like provision of roads, sewers, drains and green space etc., therefore, this amount of 50% was required to be deducted out of the compensation amount towards development charges. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. At the outset, it would be necessary to set out certain broad parameters and principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 7. At the outset, it would be necessary to set out certain broad parameters and principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 8. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. Of course, the other well-known methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account the transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under section 4 of the Act by making suitable alliance. There can be no fixed criteria as what would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the land relied upon. 9. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1998) 3 SCC 751 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up the principle as follows : [4] The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:- Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court shall not determine the merits of these appeals. 11. The record reveals that sale deed dated 10.11.2006 Ext.PW2/A was executed by Smt. Chander Lata through her GPA in favour of Smt. Dropti Devi, whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 564 square metres, situated at Mauja Chhota Shimla, for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 3546/- per square metre. 12. Ext. PW2/B is the sale deed dated 30.05.2000, executed by Shiv Kumar Sood in favour of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 764-63 square metres, situated at mauja Chhota Shimla, for a sale consideration of Rs. 29,82,057/- i.e. @ Rs. 3900/- per square metre. 13. Ext.RW1/A is the sale deed dated 13.07.2005 executed by one Shri Rajeev in favour of Smt. Sarita, whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 841-87 square metres situated at Mauja Chhota Shimla, for a consideration of Rs. 5,50,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 653.30 per square metre. 14. Sale deed dated 05.06.2004, Ext. RW1/B executed by Shri Lalit Kishore in favour of Rakesh Verma, whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 598.89 square metre, situated at Mauja Chhota Shimla, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- i.e. @ Rs.1168.82 per square metre. 15. The sale deed dated 2.11.2004 Ext. RW1/C executed by Shri Moti Ram through his power of attorney, whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 52.66 square metres situated at Mauja Chhota Shimla, for a sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/- i.e. Rs. 854.53 paise. 16. 15. The sale deed dated 2.11.2004 Ext. RW1/C executed by Shri Moti Ram through his power of attorney, whereby the vendor had sold the land measuring 52.66 square metres situated at Mauja Chhota Shimla, for a sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/- i.e. Rs. 854.53 paise. 16. Admittedly, the land acquired is in Muhal/Mauja, Chhota Shimla, therefore, the aforesaid sale exemplars shall have to be kept in mind while determining the market value of the land. However, only those of the sale exemplars can be taken into consideration that were at the close proximity of time with the notification under Section 4 of the Act, as it is more than settled law that compensation to be awarded has to be determined by the learned Reference Court based upon the market value under Section 4(1) of the Act. (Ref: Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & another, (2011) 9 SCC 207 ). 17. Adverting to the evidence led by the claimants, PW1 Manmohan Singh, Patwari, Patwar Circle Chhota Shimla proved on record the one year average market price for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.10.2005 Ext.PW1/A, according to which the value of the cultivated land was assessed at 3103.48 paise per square metre. The testimony of this witness went unrebutted as the cross-objector despite opportunity did not choose to cross-examine him. 18. PW2 Gauri Shankar, Registration Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar (Urban), Shimla, appeared and proved on record the sale deed Ext.PW2/A, even this witness was not cross-examined by the cross-objector. 19. PW3 Lalit Kumar is one of the claimant and stated that the value of the acquired land was more than Rs. 3000/- per square metre as it abuts the National Highway and even otherwise it was situated in fast developing area and there was petrol pump, BCS School, Kasumpati Commercial Complex, office of various firms, banks and market near the acquired land. He further stated that in the close proximity of the acquired land, the cross-objector had already constructed residential colony. In cross-examination, he denied that the acquired land was sloppy but feigned ignorance about the acquired land being connected through road. He denied the suggestion that adjoining lands were having modern amenities. 20. PW4 Lalit Kishore is one of the other claimant, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.PW4/A, wherein the contents of the Reference Petition were reiterated. In cross-examination, he denied that the acquired land was sloppy but feigned ignorance about the acquired land being connected through road. He denied the suggestion that adjoining lands were having modern amenities. 20. PW4 Lalit Kishore is one of the other claimant, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.PW4/A, wherein the contents of the Reference Petition were reiterated. In cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion that the acquired land was a under developed land but then he candidly stated that he had not seen his land for a considerable period. 21. PW5 Arvind Kumar is the third claimant filed his affidavit Ext.PW5/A in his evidence. He reiterated therein the contents of the Reference Petition. On being cross-examined, this witness admitted that no construction had been carried out over the acquired land. He further admitted that the same was totally undeveloped. He admitted that the acquired land was sloppy and was below the National Highway. 22. As against this, the respondents have examined as many as five witnesses in support of their claim. 23. RW1 Gulab Singh, Registration Clerk in the office of Tehsildar, Urban, Shimla proved on record sale deed Ext. RW1/A, dated 13.07.2005, executed by Rajeev in favour of Sarita He further proved on record the sale deed Ext.RW1/B executed by one of the claimant Lalit Kishore in favour of Rakesh Verma and further proved the sale deed Ext. RW1/C, dated 02.11.2004 executed by Shiv Ram in favour of Bimla Devi, which according to him were true and correct as per the original brought by him. The claimants did not choose to cross-examine this witness even though afforded opportunity for the same. 24. Rakesh Verma appeared as RW2 who was the buyer of the property as reflected in sale deed Ext.RW1/B. According to him, he purchased 598.89 square metres of land from Lalit Kishore (one of the claimant) for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- on 05.06.2004. This land was situated at a distance of about 20-30 feet from the boundary of petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum, however, he feigned ignorance regarding the location of the acquired land but stated that his land was at a distance of 15-20 feet down from National Highway which was known as Shimla Bye-pass. This land was situated at a distance of about 20-30 feet from the boundary of petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum, however, he feigned ignorance regarding the location of the acquired land but stated that his land was at a distance of 15-20 feet down from National Highway which was known as Shimla Bye-pass. In cross-examination, this witness clearly admitted that the land purchased by him was having commercial potentiality and was located in the developed area where all the facilities of water, electricity, road etc. are available. He further admitted that the area of new Shimla, BCS, Chhota Shimla, colonies of Housing Board and Kasumpati commercial complex adjoins to this land. He further stated that the commercial complex of Kasumpati was at a distance of 50 metres from the acquired land. 25. RW3 Bimla Sharma stated that she had purchased 52.66 sq. metres of land from Shiv Ram for a sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- and proved on record Ext. RW1/C. 26. RW4 Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was posted as Senior Architect, HIMUDA, stated that he had prepared the lay out plan Ext. RW4/B and the cross section of the proposed buildings Ext.RW4/C. He further stated that the land was sloppy but was abutted to the National Highway. For the construction purposes 22.05 metres from the centre of National Highway had to be left out on which no construction work could be carried out but the space could be utilised for construction of approach road. He further stated that taking into consideration the terrain of the land only 31% against the permissible limit of 50% could be utilised for the purpose of raising construction. In cross-examination, this witness denied that the acquired land was near BCS School and 300 metres from new Shimla Chowk. He further stated that the acquired land abutted the National Highway and further stated that the cross-objector may have acquired the land because it was most suitable for residential colony. He further admitted that before acquiring the land the department would take into consideration the various factors like suitability, advantageous, commercial viability. He further admitted that the acquired area was already connected with other kind of modern facilities including electricity, offices, hospitals, water supply etc. 27. He further admitted that before acquiring the land the department would take into consideration the various factors like suitability, advantageous, commercial viability. He further admitted that the acquired area was already connected with other kind of modern facilities including electricity, offices, hospitals, water supply etc. 27. As regards the testimony of RW5 Lalit Kumar, he was posted as Sub Divisional Officer with the petitioner and stated that he had dealt with and processed the files regarding acquisition of the land in question. He stated that there was one nala which was required to be channelised for the protection of building blocks and likewise 200 metres wide road was required to be constructed in the acquired land by constructing retaining wall for achieving six metres width. However, this road has to be constructed by leaving land from the acquired land up to the width of the National Highway measuring 22 ½ metres from the central line of the National Highway. He also stated that the acquired land was sloppy but denied that the same abuts the National Highway. According to him, the estimated cost of the developmental activities was worked out at Rs.4,73,71,403 as prepared by the H.P. Public Works Department. The acquired land was about 1 km. from BCS and 1 Km. from SDA Complex. The building blocks were to be constructed in 30% of the acquired land whereas in the rest of the land developmental activities required to be carried out. In cross-examination this witness clearly admitted that the cross-objector had acquired the land keeping in view its suitability and advantage of land for residential and commercial purposes. He further stated that even though there was another piece of land near the acquired land, however, the said land was not acquired. He further stated that towards the Eastern side of the acquired land was a petrol pump and towards the Western side the prestigious BCS school. He further admitted that on the Northern side above the National Highway was Knollswood colony. He further stated that towards the Eastern side of the acquired land was a petrol pump and towards the Western side the prestigious BCS school. He further admitted that on the Northern side above the National Highway was Knollswood colony. Volunteered to state that the same was at a considerable distance, however, he again admitted that the area above the colony had already been developed by the cross-objector and the locality where the land had now been acquired was having all modern faculties like water, electricity, road, banks, post office, market and government offices though he again volunteered to state that above facilities are not on the acquired land that these are far away from the acquired land. However, again he admitted that on both sides of the acquired land there was large number of residential houses where people are residing. He further admitted that in BCS, the cross-objector had constructed number of residential colonies and otherwise also large number of private houses had been constructed in that area by the private owners. He further admitted that modern amenities available in BCS including government, private establishments and market. This in entirety is the oral evidence led by the parties. 28. A close perusal of the evidence would reveal that even though the acquired land abuts the National Highway but the same is situated below it. It also cannot be disputed that a considerable amount was required to be spent by the cross-objector for carrying out the development work. 29. Learned counsel for both the parties have cited number of judgments regarding the percentage of amount which shall have to be spent for such development purposes. Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (4) SCC 789 2. Trishala Jain & Anr. vs. State of Uttranchal & Anr., 2011 (6) SCC 47 3. Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Attar Singh & Ors. 2011 (14) SCC 745 4. Indraj Singh (dead) through Lrs. vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 491 5. Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh & Ors. 2014 (10) SCC 422 6. Bhupal Singh & ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (5 SCC 801 30. On the other hand Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned Advocate, has referred to the following judgments : 1. Ashrafi & ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (14) SCC 491 5. Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh & Ors. 2014 (10) SCC 422 6. Bhupal Singh & ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (5 SCC 801 30. On the other hand Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned Advocate, has referred to the following judgments : 1. Ashrafi & ors. vs. State of Haryana & ors., 2013 (5) SCC 527 2. Valliyammal & anr. vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) & Ors. 2011 (8) SCC 91 31. However, I need not refer to the aforesaid judgments as majority of these have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in case titled as Maya Devi vs. State of Haryana (2018) 2 SCC 474 , wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 1/3rd deduction should normally be made towards development charges. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant observations which read thus : [6] So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellants/claimants dated 27.12.1988 is post notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr., 2011 9 SCC 207 , it was held that the relevant date for determining the compensation is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette. In para (34), it was held as under:- "34. One of the principles in regard to determination of the market value under Section 23(1) is that the rise in market value after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value. If the deeming definition of "publication of the notification" in the amended Section 4(1) is imported as the meaning of the said words in the first clause of Section 23(1), it will lead to anomalous results. The owners of the lands which are the subject-matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the Gazette or in the newspapers. The owners of the lands which are the subject-matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the Gazette or in the newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification is delayed by two or three months, there may be several sale transactions in regard to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike in value in view of the development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself." Applying the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that the post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land. [7] So far as the contention regarding deduction at the rate of 67.5% for development charges is concerned, the exemplar relied upon by the High Court dated 26.05.1983 was for a small extent of land of 9 marlas which was sold for Rs.25,500/-. The transaction relates to the period which is about 56 months prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the High Court adopted the rate of escalation at 10% and calculated the value at Rs.6,64,887/-. Considering the fact that the acquired land required for development and that the property covered under the exemplar was for a small extent of 9 marlas of land, the High Court applied maximum deduction at 67.5% and calculated the compensation to be paid at Rs.2,19,413/- per acre. [8] In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar and Ors., 2011 15 SCC 297 , this Court has held 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." [9] Observing that the development charges for development of particular plot of land could range from 20% to 75%, in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another, 2009 15 SCC769, in paras (13), (14) and (20), this Court held as under: "13. The percentage of 'deduction for development' to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. 14. The 'deduction for development' consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. . ..… 20. Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure." The same principle was reiterated in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K.Manohar Reddy and Ors., 2010 12 SCC 707 . [10] In a catena of judgments, this Court has taken the view to apply one-third deduction towards the development charges. After referring to various case laws on the question of deduction for development, in Major General Kapil Mehra and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 2015 2 SCC 262 , this Court held as under: "35. Reiterating the rule of one-third deduction towards development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2012 7 SCC 595 , this Court in para 19 held as under: (SCC pp. 606-07) "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 is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, 2003 1 SCC 354 the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7) “7. In Kasturi v. 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; maybe 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.....................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, maybe 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 orplot, 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 allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. A.Mangala Gowri, 1991 (4) SCC 218 , Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (4) SCC 245 , Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana, 1996 (10) SCC 631 , Revenue Divl. One-third deduction towards development was allowed in Tehsildar (LA) v. A.Mangala Gowri, 1991 (4) SCC 218 , Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (4) SCC 245 , Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana, 1996 (10) SCC 631 , Revenue Divl. Officer and LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb, 2009 (4) SCC 395 , A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy, 2010 (12) SCC 707 , Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, 2013 (5) SCC 527 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2014 (2) SCC 165 . 37. Depending on the 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 v. Krishan Kumar, 2011 (15) SCC 297 , Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu, 2006 (12) SCC 87 , Mummidi Apparao v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., 2009 (4) SCC 402 and Lal Chand v. 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 v. State of Haryana, 2008 (15) SCC 201 , deduction of 60% towards development charges was held to be legal. This Court in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, 2010 (1) SCC 444 , held that deduction of 67% amount was not improper. Similarly, in Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2012 (1) SCC 390 , deduction of 70% was upheld." 32. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, I am of the considered view that in matters of undeveloped or under-developed plots, the deduction in this case should be 1/3rd towards the development cost, therefore, in such circumstances further question arises for consideration is that as to what, in fact, is the market value of the land. 33. As per the testimony of PW1, the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 3103.48 paise on the basis of one year average market value for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.10.2005 Ext.PW1/A. 34. It is also not in dispute that even though all the sale exemplars pertain to the same Mauja/Muhal i.e. Chhota Shimla, however, it is only the land involved in sale deed Ext. 3103.48 paise on the basis of one year average market value for the period 01.07.2004 to 31.10.2005 Ext.PW1/A. 34. It is also not in dispute that even though all the sale exemplars pertain to the same Mauja/Muhal i.e. Chhota Shimla, however, it is only the land involved in sale deed Ext. PW2/B that is, in fact, abutting the acquired land. 35. Even though Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, strenuously argued that this land has to be kept out of consideration for determining the market value as the same was purchased for commercial purpose i.e. for setting up of petrol pump. However, I find no merit in this submission for the simple reason that one of the principles for determining the compensation is the price on the basis of what the willing buyer will pay to willing seller. 36. Now in case the mean of Ex.PW1/A i.e. the average market price of land Mauja Chhota Shimla and Ext.PW2/B is taken into consideration, the average price of the land would work out to be Rs.2724/- and in case 1/3rd deductions are made out towards the development charges, even then the claimants would still be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1717/- per square metre. In this view of the matter, the award of the Reference Court whereby the claimants have been held entitled to Rs. 1800/- per square metre irrespective of the classification of land appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, I find no merit in these appeals and accordingly the same are dismissed. 37. As regards the cross-objections, it would be noticed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1717/- has been worked out by this Court after making a deduction of 1/3rd from the compensation amount out of the market value of the land and taking into consideration that there is always an element of guess work in awarding compensation and the same cannot be by way of a mathematical precision, the amount of Rs.1800/- per square metre as awarded by the learned Reference Court cannot in any manner be said to be excessive. 38. In this view of the matter, the cross-objections are also dismissed. Consequently, all these appeals as also cross-objections are ordered to be dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Registry to place the copy of the judgment in each of the appeal.