JUDGMENT : GEETHA K.B., J. 1. MFA Nos.100861/2019, 100858/2019, 100859/2019, 100860/2019, 100862/2019, 100863/2019 and 100864/2019 are filed by the appellant/beneficiary, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi (for short, the reference Court), in LAC Nos.5/2013 to 11/2013, dated 28.04.2018; MFA Nos.101658/2021, 101659/2021, 101660/2021, 101661/2021, 101903/2021, 101904/2021 and 101905/2021 are filed by claimants, praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the reference Court, for sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The admitted facts are that, for the purpose of rehabilitation of the land losers in Markandeya (Hidkal Dam) Project, lands of the claimants in LAC Nos.5/2013 to 11/2013 totally measuring 21 acres 05 guntas, situated at Basavanakudachi village of Belagavi District were acquired. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published on 27.05.2004 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award in LAQ: JSR: 107, 109/2004-05 on 15.07.2004 awarding compensation of Rs.81,656/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants have preferred the reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Act, which was entertained by the reference Court. 4. On behalf of claimants, P.W.1 & PW.2 were examined apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.47 and closed their side before the reference Court. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was let in except marking Exs.R.1 and R.2-the award passed by SLAO and Award Statement. 5. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the reference Court based on the sale deed dated 29.01.2004, has passed the award by fixing the market value of the acquired property at Rs.56,000/- per gunta. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/beneficiary has preferred MFA Nos.100861/2019, 100858/2019,  100859/2019, 100860/2019, 100862/2019, 100863/2019 and 100864/2019. 7. Not satisfied with the said award of compensation by the reference Court, the claimants have preferred the appeal in MFA Nos.101658/2021, 101659/2021, 101660/2021, 101661/2021, 101903/2021, 101904/2021 and 101905/2021. 8. Heard arguments of learned counsel Sri S.M.Kalwad, appearing on behalf of appellant/beneficiary, learned counsel Sri Ashok A. Naik, appearing for the claimants and learned HCGP Smt.Kirti Latha Patil, appearing for the State. 9. 8. Heard arguments of learned counsel Sri S.M.Kalwad, appearing on behalf of appellant/beneficiary, learned counsel Sri Ashok A. Naik, appearing for the claimants and learned HCGP Smt.Kirti Latha Patil, appearing for the State. 9. Learned counsel Sri S.M.Kalwad, appearing on behalf of appellant/beneficiary would submit his arguments that, the lands in question were acquired at Basavana Kudachi village, Belgavi, and it was not within the jurisdiction of Belagavi Corporation as on the date of acquisition. It is about 10.3 kilometers away from Belagavi. There were no developments at the time of acquisition. The reference Court erred in granting compensation at Rs.56,000/- per gunta by only relying upon Ex.P.8 sale deed dated 29.01.2004, which was executed only in respect of 03 guntas 02 annas 05 paisa and the acquisition in present case is about 21 acres. Hence, placing reliance upon said sale deed by the reference Court is erroneous. He would further submit that, even then the reference Court has not given deduction in respect of development charges, when the property in question is acquired for forming housing layout. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants Sri Ashok A. Naik would submit that, grant of Rs.56,000/- per gunta by reference Court is very less compared to the acquisition made by the National Highway Authority in recent time. He would further submit that, in comparison to Ex.P.3, under which the property adjacent to National Highway was acquired for widening the road, the compensation awarded herein is on lower side, because the compensation awarded by NHAI is Rs.80,000/- per gunta. This award is also passed at the proximity of acquiring land in the present case. Hence, the reference Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and hence, prays for enhancement of compensation at Rs.80,000/- per gunta to the acquired property by allowing the appeals filed by him and to dismiss the appeals filed by the beneficiary. 11. After hearing arguments of both sides, verifying the appeal papers and also the reference Court records, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the reference Court is liable to be interfered with?” 12. Our finding on the above point is in ‘affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 13. 11. After hearing arguments of both sides, verifying the appeal papers and also the reference Court records, the only point that would arise for our consideration is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the reference Court is liable to be interfered with?” 12. Our finding on the above point is in ‘affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 13. The admitted facts of the case are that the agricultural lands belonging to claimants in LAC No.5/2011 to 11/2011 were acquired under preliminary notification dated 27.05.2004 for the purpose of rehabilitation of the land-losers in Markandeya (Hidkal Dam) Project. 14. The claimants have produced sale deeds as per Exs.P.4 to P.9, before the reference Court in respect of the sales that has taken place near the date of acquisition. Amongst those sale deeds, only Ex.P.8 sale deed dated 29.01.2004 was in respect of the property sold at Basavana Kuduchi village to the proximate date. Hence, the reference Court considered the said sale deed for determining the compensation. According to this sale deed, 03 guntas 02 annas 05 paisa was sold, for a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. By making its calculation, the reference Court held that it amounts to Rs.56,000/- per gunta. 15. As discussed above, the acquisition in the present case is about 21 acres and admittedly it is dry land. Even though claimants contended that the acquired property comes within the jurisdiction of Belgavi Corporation, they failed to prove that as on the date of preliminary notification, the property in question comes within the jurisdiction of Belagavi Corporation. On the other hand, the admitted facts are that it was a dry barren land and nothing was being cultivated in this property and it was just a grass land and these facts are categorically admitted by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. 16. As far as award passed by the National Highway Authority as per Ex.P.3 is concerned, it cannot be considered to the present case, because admittedly under Ex.P.3, the adjacent land to National Highway is acquired for widening National Highway. Hence, that cannot be criteria to decide the acquired property in the present case. All other sale deeds produced by claimants are of the year 2001 to 2003 and not of the year 2004. Hence, reference Court has rightly not considered those sale deeds. The only remaining sale deed to be considered is Ex.P.8. Hence, that cannot be criteria to decide the acquired property in the present case. All other sale deeds produced by claimants are of the year 2001 to 2003 and not of the year 2004. Hence, reference Court has rightly not considered those sale deeds. The only remaining sale deed to be considered is Ex.P.8. According to it, only Rs.56,000/- per gunta is the correct market value of sold property under said document. 17. At the time of giving reasons, the reference Court has observed that as per the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SLAO vs. Vaijanath since deceased by Lrs Siddappa Patil, reported in ILR 2006 Karnataka 154 , there shall be deduction for civic amenities if the property in question is acquired for housing purpose or for other purposes. In the present case also admittedly the property in question is acquired for housing purpose and thus, there shall be some deduction towards development charges or civic amenities, which is not done in the present case by the reference Court. The reference Court has also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Basavva and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3168 , wherein also the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that deduction towards developmental charges at 65% was just and proper. However, without considering any of these judgments, even though they were relied by the reference Court, without giving deduction towards developmental charges, taking Rs.56,000/- as a whole per gunta by reference Court, is erroneous. Hence, it requires interference. 18. Considering the ratio laid down in the above said judgments of Co-ordinate bench of this Court under Vaijanath case (supra) and also of Smt.Basavva's case (supra) of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case deduction of 30% towards developmental charges is quite appropriate. 19. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA Nos.100861/2019, 100858/2019, 100859/2019, 100860/2019, 100862/2019, 100863/2019 and 100864/2019 filed by the appellants/beneficiary are partly allowed with costs. ii) MFA Nos.101658/2021, 101659/2021, 101660/2021, 101661/2021, 101903/2021, 101904/2021 and 101905/2021, filed by the appellants/claimants are dismissed. 19. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA Nos.100861/2019, 100858/2019, 100859/2019, 100860/2019, 100862/2019, 100863/2019 and 100864/2019 filed by the appellants/beneficiary are partly allowed with costs. ii) MFA Nos.101658/2021, 101659/2021, 101660/2021, 101661/2021, 101903/2021, 101904/2021 and 101905/2021, filed by the appellants/claimants are dismissed. iii) Claimants in the above MFAs are entitled for a compensation at the rate of Rs.39,200/- per gunta (after deducting developmental charges) for the acquired lands, along with solatium and all other statutory benefits and interest.