JUDGMENT : 1. This CRP is preferred against the judgment and award dated 07.03.2002 passed in CMA No 18 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankoil and the award dated 04.12.2000 made in A/930/2000 by the Special Tahsildar, Adhi Dravidar Welfare Department, Sankarankoil. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the above orders and had challenged the valuation adopted by the authorities for fixing the compensation for the land acquired from them. 2. The second respondent had conducted acquisition proceedings to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares out of the 0.53.5 hectares of punjai land belonging to the appellant comprised in Survey No.244/9 in South Kuruvikulam Village of Sankarankoil Taluk of Tirunelveli District under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Act, 1978 (Act 31 of 1978). The valuation for the property to arrive at the compensation was sought to be determined by calculating the average of the sale price of the registrations carried out in the Sub Registrar Office, Kalughumalai, for the properties in the South Kuruvikulam Village for the period between 28.09.1999 and 27.09.2000. 3. 47 transactions were registered during the period. Out of the 47 transactions, 26 transactions were ignored on the ground of distance from the acquired property and 12 transactions were ignored on the ground of classification. Out of the remaining 9 transactions, 8 were ignored on the ground of lower extent and higher price. Accordingly, the sale price of the remaining transaction viz., Survey No.214/5 comprising 0.70 acres registered on 22.12.1999 at a transaction value of Rs. 31,500/- was taken as a standard for arriving at the value. It was reasoned that the said transaction was similar in character to the land under acquisition in terms of size, classification and propinquity. Accordingly the value for the acquired land was arrived at Rs. 22,500/- after factoring the per acre price for the model transaction. A solatium of Rs.3,375/- @ 15% of the land value was added as relief and a total compensation amount of Rs.25,875/- was fixed vide award A/930/2000 dated 04.12.2000. 4. Aggrieved by the above award, the revision petitioner had filed an appeal with the Sub Court, Sankarankoil in CMA.No 18 of 2001. In the CMA, the learned Sub Judge held that the lower authority erred in ignoring the 8 transactions on the ground of smaller extent and higher prize. 4. Aggrieved by the above award, the revision petitioner had filed an appeal with the Sub Court, Sankarankoil in CMA.No 18 of 2001. In the CMA, the learned Sub Judge held that the lower authority erred in ignoring the 8 transactions on the ground of smaller extent and higher prize. Therefore, the said transactions were examined for consideration and it was thought fit to ignore two transactions on account of the distance from the acquired land and the remaining 6 transactions were considered for arriving at the value of the acquired land on account of their propinquity. 5. Accordingly, the average transaction value of Rs. 3,75,718/- of the 6 transactions were taken into account and as the properties are of lesser extent compared to the acquired property and to factor the same, one third of the average value was taken and rounded off to Rs.2,50,000/- per acre as the market value of acquired property. The acquired property was valued at Rs.1,25,000/- for the 50 cents and a solatium of 15% of the market value and an interest of 6% per annum was ordered as relief to the revision petitioner. 6. The revision petitioner is agreeable to comparison adopted by the learned Sub Judge for valuation of the land but aggrieved at the deduction of one third portion of the value. It was contended that the land was in the middle of the village and nearby school and hence the potentialities of the acquired land is more in comparison to the compared land and therefore, the learned Sub Judge ought to have fixed the value at the highest sale transaction of Rs.5,50,000/- per acre. It was argued that since the area was already developed, the learned Sub Judge erred in deducting one third of the value on account of development charges. It was contended that in the absence of contra evidences, the claim of the revision petitioner should have been allowed. They had relied on the decisions of Special Deputy Collector & Anr vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors reported in AIR 1997 SC 2625 , Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors vs Special Tahsildar Visakapatnam Municipality reported in AIR 1992 SC 2298 and CMSA No 42 of 2003 dated 06.06.2018 in the case of Pattammal & Ors for claim of interest and sought similar relief. 7. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that 40% has to be deducted towards development charges and in support of the same, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 781 . 8. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The learned Sub Judge had fairly applied his mind and revised the compensation by comparing the transactions of the nearby lands irrespective of the extent. Therefore, the method adopted by the learned Sub Judge is reasonable to compare the prices through similar sale transactions. However, there is a categorical finding that the area is already developed and therefore it was held that reduction on account of development charges is not warranted. Therefore, in my view, once conclusion that the area is already developed is arrived, there is no reason in allowing deductions on account of the comparable extent of land more particularly, when there is no contra evidences on record. To that extent, the impugned order is at error. 9. Therefore, the value per acre for the acquired land ought to have been fixed at Rs.3,75,718/- as against the Rs. 2,50,000/- determined by the learned Sub judge. The revision petitioner is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,75,718/- per acre and solatium settled on the said determination. The second respondent shall rework the compensation award for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,75,718/- per acre market price. The revision petitioner shall be entitled for an interest of 9% per annum from the date of acquiring the land till the date of realization of the amount in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Pattammal & Ors vs The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Vellore. 10. The CRP is allowed on the above terms. No costs.