JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree in LAOP No.6 of 2016 dated 20.03.2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.) Common Order 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred to set aside the judgment and decree passed in LAOP Nos.4,5,6,7 of 2016, LAOP No.1,2,3 of 2015, LAOP No.5 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017 and LAOP No.3 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. 2. Heard Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the first respondent in all Civil Revision Petitions and also perused the materials placed on record. 3. The short facts of the case in all Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: The revision petitioners are the Referring Officers. The reference was made by the first revision petitioner who is the District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kancheepuram for enhancement of compensation in connection with the land acquisition proceedings. An award was passed in Award No.6 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010, for acquiring the lands belonging to the first respondent and others for the purpose of formation of Railway over bridge. The lands of the respondent claimants are situated in S.Nos.553/7B, 553/9F2, 553/22, 133/1A1B, 552/23, 205B/3B2, 205B/3A1, 205B/4C, 553/9F3, 553/9C2 in Chengalpattu town. 3.1. The compensation was given by fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.1351/- per Sq.ft. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded, the respondent claimants raised objections. Hence, reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the market value of the lands by enhancing it to Rs.5500/- per Sq.ft. and enhanced the award on that basis. Aggrieved over that, the petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Hence, reference was made to the Land Acquisition Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Tribunal has fixed the market value of the lands by enhancing it to Rs.5500/- per Sq.ft. and enhanced the award on that basis. Aggrieved over that, the petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has relied on Ex.C1 sale deed as a sample sale deed for fixing the land value at Rs.5500/- per Sq.ft; the subject matter of the said sale deed is a smaller extent of land comprising 440 Sq.ft only; since the acquisition was made for a larger extent of lands, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is very excessive; while the Land Acquisition Officer has relied on the sale deed related to the land abutting to the acquired lands, the Court has relied on the land which is far away from the acquired lands for fixing the market value; the extent of land involved in the sample sale deed relied by the Court is just 440 Sq.ft; the extent of land involved in the data sale deed relied by the Referring Officer is 2000 Sq.ft; while fixing the market value, the Court omitted to deduct development charges; whenever smaller extent of lands are acquired for larger purpose, the Court should deduct development charges. In support of his above submissions, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Another, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207 . 5. Mr.A.Babu, learned counsel for the respondent claimants submitted that the lands acquired from the land owners are already developed approved house sites and hence there is no need to deduct any development charges; the sample sale deed relied by the Court is situated in the very same stretch of lands acquired for the similar purpose; the location advantages and other other features surrounding the lands were taken into consideration while enhancing the compensation; since the lands have already got amenities, the deduction of development charges will not arise. 6. The subject matter of the data sale deed relied by the Referring Officer and the sale deed relied by the Court are situated in a distance of 1.6 Kms. 6. The subject matter of the data sale deed relied by the Referring Officer and the sale deed relied by the Court are situated in a distance of 1.6 Kms. The entire stretch of the lands in that area is acquired for the same purpose. The type of the lands also appears to be similar. It is seen that the boundaries of the subject matter of the land in Ex.C1 are all approved house sites. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the large tract of lands can be put to different use and hence while fixing the market value for the small piece of lands, deduction should be made in view of the developments like roads, drainage, electricity, communication etc. 7. In the judgment relied by the learned Special Government Pleader in the case of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Another, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207 , it is held in paragraph Nos.24,25 and 26 as under: “24. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona - (1988) 3 SCC 751 , this Court gave the following illustration to arrive at the value of large undeveloped land from the value of a small developed plot: "4. (15) ....A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq.yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 sq.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 by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately 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." 25. 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." 25. By comparing the situational advantage, existing development and amenities available to the acquired lands and the exemplar sale transactions relating to small plots, and other relevant circumstances, this Court has made cuts or deductions varying from 20% to 75% from the value of the small developed plots to arrive at the value of acquired lands. 26. In Lal Chand, this Court gave the following guidelines as to what should be the deduction for development : "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 lay out 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. For example if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilise around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, play grounds and civic amenities (community facilities) etc. 15. The Development Authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying waterlines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the `deduction for development' and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of `deduction for development' may be far less. This is because in an un-authorized lay outs, usually no land will be set apart for parks, play grounds and community facilities. 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of `deduction for development' may be far less. This is because in an un-authorized lay outs, usually no land will be set apart for parks, play grounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorised layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. 17. The `deduction for development' with references to prices of plots in authorised private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. ....... 19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary). 20. Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed lay out, 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 unauthorized private lay out or an industrial layout. .......... 22. Some of the layouts formed by statutory Development Authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical sub-stations etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the `deduction for development' factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%." 8. The subject land involved in the case of the above judgment are beel lands and that have been acquired for the purpose of development. Beel lands means a lake like bit land with static water. The Acquisition Authority would need to drain them, fill them and level them by incurring lot of expenditure and labour. The subject land involved in the case of the above judgment are beel lands and that have been acquired for the purpose of development. Beel lands means a lake like bit land with static water. The Acquisition Authority would need to drain them, fill them and level them by incurring lot of expenditure and labour. Unless the beel lands are converted into sali lands (land with better landscaping), no development work can be undertaken. 9. The very object of acquiring the beel lands itself is to develop those lands which did not have any development. The process of development would involve draining, filling and levelling and only thereafter, it can be converted into Sali plots. Only in that context in the said case, it was found that the value of Sali plots was higher than the beel lands. Since beel lands have to undergo various process like draining, filling and levelling, the expenses and efforts made to convert them into Sali plots involve lot of expenses. Hence the development Authority needs to incur expenditure for converting the undeveloped land into a developed layout by providing roads, underground drainage, sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines, parks and other civil amenities. And there is a possibility for the very same land owner to get allotment of plots or houses in Sali lands depending upon the scheme of the Government. Only in that category of acquisition, the development charges ought to be deducted from the value of the land, by taking into consideration of the expenses involved in the course of development. 10. In the case on hand, the purpose for acquisition is not for developing the lands which are lying as waste lands. The potential lands like plots in a continuous stretch have been acquired for the purpose of forming Railway over bridge. The land owners were compelled to loose their properties of potential value, for the benefit of public at large. At any rate, the lands so acquired cannot be re-allotted to the land owners themselves for better use after converting them into better shape, size and utility. There is no personal benefit attached to the land owners who give away their lands for public use. The lands which have been acquired are already the developed lands and on which, no further development like draining, levelling etc. is not needed. There is no personal benefit attached to the land owners who give away their lands for public use. The lands which have been acquired are already the developed lands and on which, no further development like draining, levelling etc. is not needed. Had they been allowed to remain in the hands of the land owners themselves, they could built constructions for different and better use. 11. The subject lands of these cases are good sized plots. They have better levelling and landscape and ready for construction. Though the area of the lands is small, the lands are potential in nature as they are surrounded by approved house sites. The lands which were owned by the land owners for the purpose of constructing their own house for their living, have been acquired for public purpose. Under such circumstances, it is the Government which has to pay solatium along with all other essential components of compensation. Since the deduction charges are only applicable when the subject lands are unusable waste lands, it cannot be claimed by the Referring Officer that development charges should be deducted. 12. Since the situation that has arisen in the case cited by the learned Special Government Pleader is not applicable to the nature of the subject lands, nature of the user and other allied circumstances of these cases, the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition Tribunal had chosen to enhance the market value of the lands by picking up the sale deed of the sample land in the same stretch of lands and enhanced the compensation. The claimants deserve to get enhanced compensation which is based on the actual market value. No acceptable reason is stated for allowing deductions. Hence the enhanced compensation fixed by the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition Tribunal does not require any interference. 13. In pursuance of the interim order passed during the pendency of the proceedings, 50% of the compensation amount has been deposited before the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu. The above gesture of the Petitioners is appreciable. The respondents/ claimants are at liberty to withdraw the proportionate compensation due to them by making proper applications before the appropriate Court. In view of the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the Referring Officer are liable to be dismissed. 14. The above gesture of the Petitioners is appreciable. The respondents/ claimants are at liberty to withdraw the proportionate compensation due to them by making proper applications before the appropriate Court. In view of the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the Referring Officer are liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and the order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in LAOP Nos.4,5,6,7 of 2016, LAOP No.1,2,3 of 2015, LAOP No.5 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017 and LAOP No.3 of 2016 dated 28.04.2017, are confirmed. The respondents/ claimants are at liberty to withdraw the proportionate compensation due to them by making proper applications before the appropriate Court. No costs.