JUDGMENT : Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J. 1. This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 06.08.2004, passed by the learned Reference Court, Beed in L.A.R. No. 294 of 2001. 2. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out the pleadings and evidence and submitted that block No.459 admeasuring 20 acres area situated at village Iat, Tq. and district Beed, was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of flood affected persons. He pointed out the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the claimants in support of their claim. He pointed out the sale exemplars at Exh. 21, 23 and 24. He submitted that the acquired land of the claimants was having a water facility through the canal and in support of the same, a receipt of payment of water tax is proved by the claimants. The Canal Inspector was also examined, who deposed that the acquired land had the facility of canal water. He submitted that, while calculating the amount of compensation, the Reference Court has committed an error and deducted 65% amount out of the market value of the acquired land, in the sale exemplar at Exh.21-A. He pointed out para 20 and submitted that there is no justifiable reason to deduct 65% of the amount. For that purpose, he is relying upon the authority in the case of Subh Ram and others vs. State of Harayana and another (2010) 1 SCC 444 , in which in para 24 and 25, it is observed as under:- “24. Deduction of `development cost' is the concept used to derive the `wholesale price' of a large undeveloped land with reference to the `retail price' of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the `development cost'. Two factors have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the `retail price' as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land. 25. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the acquired land. 25. The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity of electricity, water etc.), then the development cost (that is percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition will play a role in determining the percentage of deduction towards development cost.” 3. Learned advocate for the appellants has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna and others vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam (1991) 4 SCC 506 , in which it is observed that, “it is not in every case that there shall be deduction. Where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed area with amenities of roads, electricity etc. the deduction in the value of the comparable land is not warranted.” 4. In the case of Chandrashekar (D) by L.Rs. And other vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2011 DGLS (SC) 929 ; in para 18, it is observed as under:- “18. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the legal position referred to in the foregoing two paragraphs, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy on the issue, in the recent judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first component" under the head of "development", deduction of 33-1/3 percent can be made. Likewise, for the "second component" under the head of "development" a further deduction of 33-1/3 percent can additionally be made. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development", the applied deduction should not exceed 67 percent. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development", the applied deduction should not exceed 67 percent. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds 33-1/3 percent, the two components under the head of "development" put together, should not exceed the upper benchmark. 5. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that deduction at the rate of 65% for development charges as well as for the small size of the land in exemplar Exh.21, when the acquired land is 20 acres is not justifiable and that, at the most, it may be up to 30 to 35%. He therefore, submitted to set aside the impugned judgment and award and allow the appeal. 6. Learned A.G.P. for the State submitted that the sale exemplars submitted on behalf of the claimants are not relevant to the facts of the case. He submitted that the size of the land in the said exemplar at Exh.21 is 10 Are and the acquired land is 20 acres. Thus, the said parameters cannot be applied while accepting the exemplar and for that purpose deduction is necessary. He is relying upon the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Premlata and others: (2022) 7 SCC 745 , in which it is observed as under:- “Deduction towards development charges at 1/3rd as deducted by High Court can be said to be on a lower side. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and relevant factors, if 40% deduction is ordered to be made towards development charges, it can be said to be an appropriate deduction towards development charges in facts and circumstances of case. Original claimant held entitled to compensation for acquired land @ Rs.6 per square foot, subject to 40% deduction towards development charges, with all statutory benefits.” 7. Learned A.G.P. lastly submitted that it would be appropriate to deduct 40% towards development charges. He submitted that the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct and no interference is warranted. The appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 8. On perusal of the sale exemplar, Exh. Learned A.G.P. lastly submitted that it would be appropriate to deduct 40% towards development charges. He submitted that the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct and no interference is warranted. The appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 8. On perusal of the sale exemplar, Exh. 21, it is crystal clear that it was irrigated land and the claimants’ acquired land was also irrigated land, as it is proved by the evidence of the Canal Inspector as well as receipt of the payment of tax for use of water from the canal. Thus, the quality of the acquired land was good. However, 20 acres land of the claimants is acquired and for that purpose, deduction in the price is also necessary. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Premlata and others (supra) , in the peculiar set of facts of the case, only 40% of the amount was deducted towards development charges. It is also submitted that the acquired land is adjacent to the village and it is now extended as a Gaothan area. Considering all these aspects and the peculiar set of facts that the acquired land was irrigated land, it would be appropriate to deduct 35% of the amount towards development charges as well as on account of the small piece of the land in exemplar Exh.21. However, the reasons and findings of the Reference Court are not legal and correct in respect of 65% deduction towards development charges etc. 9. If the exemplar at Exh.21 is considered, it was 10 Are land sold for Rs.25,000/- which means Rs.2500/- per Are. On the deduction of the 35% amount on Rs.2500/-, the amount comes to Rs.875/-. If the amount of Rs.875/- is deducted from Rs.2500/- then the amount comes to Rs.1625/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1625/- per Are. The total acquired land of the appellants was 20 Acres i.e. 800 Are. If it is multiplied by 1625, then it comes to Rs.13,00,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, which is just and reasonable amount. The learned Reference Court erred in this regard as held above. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court, therefore, deserve to be partly set aside. The impugned judgment and award deserve to be partly set aside. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, which is just and reasonable amount. The learned Reference Court erred in this regard as held above. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court, therefore, deserve to be partly set aside. The impugned judgment and award deserve to be partly set aside. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order:- ORDER I. The first appeal is partly allowed. II. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under:- a. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, including the amount of compensation enhanced and awarded by the Reference Court. b. The claimants are also entitled to all other statutory benefits, like component, solatium, interest etc. as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. c. The respondent State shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with interest, in this Court, within 12 weeks from today. d. The appellants to pay the deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. e. The award be drawn up accordingly. f. The record and proceedings be sent back forthwith.