IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30.08.2010 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Appeal Suit Nos.198,200 to 223 of 2007, A.S.Nos.992 to 999 of 2008 and 377 of 2010 Cros.Obj.Nos.28,30 to 44 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 The Special Tahsildar (LA) Salem-Karur Broad Gauge Line Project, Salem -1. ...Appellant in all the Appeals and 1st Respondent in all the Cross objection -vs- 1.Kaliammal 2.Balasubramaniam 3.Rani 4.Pushpa ...Respondents 1 to 4 in A.S.198/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.28/10 (Claimants) C. Madheswaran ...I Respondent in A.S.200/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.30/10 (Claimant) 1. O.K. Nagaraj 2. V.K.O. S. Raja 3. O. Kasi ...Respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.NO.201/07 (Claimants) 1. Periyasamy ...1st Respondent in A.S.202/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.31/10 (Claimants D. Manickam ...1st Respondent in A.S.203/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.44/10 (Claimant) D. Subramani ...1st Respondents in A.S.204/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.32/10 (Claimant) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ D. Krishnan ...1st Respondents in A.S.205/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.33/10 (Claimant) 1. D. Manickam 2. D. Subramaniam ...1st Respondents 1&2 in A.S.206/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.34/10 (Claimant) P. Subramani ...1st Respondents in A.S.207/2009 (Claimant) Saroja ...1st Respondent in A.S.208/2007 and Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.35/10 (Claimant) 1. S.K. Soundappan 2. K. Umapathy ...Respondents 1 & 2 in A.S.No.209/07 Vadivelu ...1st Respondents in A.S.210/2007 Ponnayaa ...1st Respondent in A.S.211/2007 (Claimant) D. Seva Gounder ...1st Respondents in A.S.212/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.36/10 1. Periyasamy 2. Chinnagounder 3. Irysayammal ...Respondents 1 to 3 in A.S.213/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.37/10 K. Periyasamy ...1st Respondents in A.S.214/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.38/10 Elumalai ...1st Respondents in A.S.215/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.39/10 1. Govindammal 2. K. Muthuraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. K. ganesan 4. K. Subramani 5. P. Palaniammal ...Respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.216/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.40/10 Sevagounder ...1st Respondent in A.S.217/2007 (Claimant) 1. C. Kuppusamy 2.The General Manger Salem Town Cooperative Bank Salem ...Respondents 1 and 2 in A.S.218/2007 (Claimants) Ponnan @ Ponnusamy ...1st Respondent in A.S.219/2007 (Claimant) P. Velu ...1st Respondents in A.S.220/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.41/10 Surutaiyyan @ Arumugam ...1st Respondent in A.S.221/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.42/10 1. Chinnakutti ...1st Respondent in A.S.222/2007 (Claimant) Cross Objectors in Cross objection No.43/10 Ayyanar ...1st Respondents in A.S.223/2007 (Claimant) Seerangan ...1st Respondents in A.S.992/2008 (Claimant) Amirtham ...1st Respondents in A.S.993/2008 (Claimant) Murugan ...1st Respondents in A.S.994/2008 (Claimant) 1. Marimuthu 2. S. Murugan 3. S. Chinnadurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Sarasu 5. S. Govindaraj 6. Ramayee ...Respondents 1 to 6 in A.S.995/2008 (Claimant) Saroja ...1st Respondents in A.S.996/2008 (Claimant) 1. Madhammal 2. K. Periyasamy ...1st Respondents in A.S.997/2008 (Claimant) 1. Subramani 2. Palaniappan ...Respondents 1 & 2in A.S.998/2008 (Claimants) M. Krishnasamy Reddy ...1st Respondent in A.S.999/2008 (Claimant) O.K. Nagaraj ...1st Respondent in A.S.377/2010 (Claimant) 5.The Deputy Chief Engineer (Constructions) Salem-Karur, Board Gauge Railway Line Project, Southern Railway,Salem. 5th Respondent in A.S.198/07 6th Respondent in A.S.216/07 7th Respondent in A.S.995/08 4th Respondent in A.S.201/07 A.S.213/07 3rd Respondent in A.S.206/07, A.S.218/07,A.S.209/07,A.S.997/08, and A.S.998/08. 2nd Respondent in A.S.200/07, A.S.202/07, 203/07,204/07,205/07, 207/07, 208/07, 210/07, 211/07, 212/07, 214/07, 215/07, 217/07, 219/07, 220/07, 221/07,222/07, 223/07, 992/08, 993/08, 995/08, 996/08, 997/08, 999/08 and 377/2010 and 2nd Respondent in all the Cross Objection. Appeal suit filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Salem, in LAOP Nos.1,3, and 5 to 27/2002 and 29/2002 to 35/2002, 329/2002 & 4/2002 dated 13.09.2004. Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and allow the cross objections filed by the Cross Objectors/respondents and fix the land value for the lands acquired https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre with attendant statutory benefits such as Solatium, additional compensation at the rate of 12% and interest. For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P.(AS) (in all AS) For Cross Objectors: Mr.A.P.S.Kasturi Rangan for M/s.Sampathkumar Associates (in all Cross Objections except Cros.Obj.30/2010) Mr.P.Jagadeesan in Cros.Obj.30/2010 For Respondents : Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar for (Railways) Mr.P.Jagadeesan for R1 in A.S.No.200/2007 Mr.R.Subramanian for R1 in A.S.No.211/2007 Mr.K.Selvaraj for R1 in A.S.No.218/2007 Mr.V.Ravi,Spl.G.P.(AS) for R1 (in all Cross Objections) Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar for Railways (in all Cross Objections) C O M M O N J U D G M E N T These appeals and cross objections arose out of land acquisitions made by the Acquiring Authority in Vengampatti Village, Salem District. The lands were acquired for the purpose of laying Salem-Karur Broad Gauge line by a shorter route by the Indian Railways, who are the requisitioning body. 2. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader (AS) for the appellant, Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, Standing counsel for the Southern Railways (the requisitioning authority), Mr.A.P.S.Kasturi Rangan for M/s.Sampathkumar Associates, Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Mr.R.Subramanian and Mr.K.Selvaraj for the claimants. 3. The facts leading to the land acquisition are as follows:- On requisition from the Indian Railways, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) on 01.03.1999 notifying the lands situated in Vengampatti Revenue village. In order to avoid delay, the enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with by invoking urgency clause and by exercising power under Section 17(2) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 6 declaration was made on 20.03.1999. After following due procedure, a final Award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to be passed vide Award No.2/99-2000 on 19.07.1999. The Acquiring Authority fixed the market rate of compensation for both wet and dry lands at the rate of Rs.64,220/- per hectare. In respect of the lands which are considered as housing sites, compensation was fixed at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. Possession of the lands were taken over by the Railways on 03.08.1999. 4. Aggrieved land owners objected to the low rate of compensation. Hence, the issues were referred for determination of market value under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the jurisdictional Reference Court and was assigned to the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I) Salem. The references were registered by the Reference Court as LAOP Nos.1 of 2002 to 35 of 2002 and 329 of 2002. A joint trial was conducted on the basis of a memo filed by both sides. Evidence was recorded in LAOP No.35 of 2002. 5. Before the Reference Court (i.e. the Court below), on behalf of the claimants, 13 witnesses were examined as C.W.1 to C.W.13. On their side, 66 documents were filed and marked as Exs.C1 to C66. On the side of the Acquiring Authority, K.Sundaram, the then Tahsildar, was examined as R.W.1 and on their side 14 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R1 to R14. In LAOP No.22 of 2002 at the request of one claimant, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to visit the land to inform the Court about the nature of the land along with a Topo sketch. The report filed by the Commissioner was marked as Court Exhibit No.1 6. The Reference Court on an analysis of evidence (both oral and documentary) placed before it passed a common judgment dated 13.09.2004. It classified the lands into four categories and fixed the value, which are as follows:- "Value fixed for Survey Nos.17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 for Rs.1700/- per cent in LAOP Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of 2002. Value fixed for Survey Nos.29, 30, 46, 48, 49 and 65 for Rs.1,000/- per cent in LAOP Nos.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of 2002. Value fixed for Survey No.54 for Rs.3,000/- per cent in LAOP Nos.22 and 23 of 2002. Value fixed for Survey Nos.118 and 120 for Rs.30/- per sq.ft in LAOP Nos.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 329 of 2002." 7. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the Reference Court, the acquiring authority has come up with these appeals. Some of the aggrieved land owners have also filed cross objections contending that the compensation fixed by the Court below was on a lower side. 8. In view of interconnectivity between all these matters, they were heard together and a common judgment is passed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. The following table will show the names of the claimants/land owners, the LAOPs regarding the reference, and the corresponding appeal suits as well as cross objections, if any filed by them. Sl. No Name of the claimant(s) L.A.O.P. Appeal Suit and Cross Objection 1 1.Balasubramanian 2.Rani 3.Puspa 1/2002 A.No.198/2007 C.O.28/2010 2 C.Madheswaran 3/2002 A.No.200/2007 C.O.30/2010 3 1.G.K.Nagaraj 2.VKOS.Raja 3.O.Kasi 5/2002 A.S.No.201/2007 Nil 4 D.Periyasamy 6/2002 A.S.No.202/2007 C.O.31/2010 5 D.Manickam 7/2002 A.S.No.203/2007 C.O.44/2010 6 D.Subramani 8/2002 A.S.No.204/2007 C.O.32/2010 7 D.Krishnan 9/2002 A.S.No.205/2007 C.O.33/2010 8 1.D.Manickam 2.D.Subramanian 10/2002 A.S.No.206/2007 C.O.34/2010 9 P.Subramani 11/2002 A.S.No.207/2007 Nil 10 Mrs.Saroja 12/2002 A.S.No.208/2007 C.O.35/2010 11 1.S.K.Soundappan 2.K.Umapathy 13/2002 A.S.No.209/2007 Nil 12 D.Vadivelu 14/2002 A.S.No.210/2007 Nil 13 Ponnayya 15/2002 A.S.No.211/2007 Nil 14 SevaGounder 16/2002 A.S.No.212/2007 C.O.36/2010 15 1.Periyasamy 2.ChinnaGounder 3.Mrs.Irusayammal 17/2002 A.S.No.213/2007 C.O.37/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No Name of the claimant(s) L.A.O.P. Appeal Suit and Cross Objection 16 K.Periyasamy 18/2002 A.S.No.214/2007 C.O.38/2010 17 Elumalai 19/2002 A.S.No.215/2007 C.O.39/2010 18 1.Govindammal 2.K.Muthuraj 3.K.Ganesan 4.K.Subramani 5.Mrs.P.Palaniammal 20/2002 A.S.No.216/2007 C.O.40/2010 19 Seva Gounder 21/2002 A.S.No.217/2007 Nil 20 1.C.Kuppusamy 2.The General Manager, Salem Town Co-operative Bank 22/2002 A.S.No.218/2007 Nil 21 Ponna @ Ponnusamy 23/2002 A.S.No.219/2007 Nil 22 P.Velu 24/2002 A.S.No.220/2007 C.O.41/2010 23 Suruttaiyan @ Arumugam 25/2002 A.S.No.221/2007 C.O.42/2010 24 Mrs.Chinnakutti 26/2002 A.S.No.222/2007 C.O.43/2010 25 Ayyanar S/o Arumugam 27/2002 A.S.No.223/2007 Nil 26 O.K.Nagaraj 4/2002 A.S.No.377/2010 27 Seerangan 29/2002 A.S.No.992/2008 Nil 28 Mrs.Amirtham 30/2002 A.S.No.993/2008 Nil 29 Murugan 31/2002 A.S.No.994/2008 Nil 30 1.Mrs.Marimuthu 2.S.Murugan 3.S.Chinnadurai 4.Sarasu 5.S.Govindaraj 6.Mrs.Ramayee 32/2002 A.S.No.995/2008 Nil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No Name of the claimant(s) L.A.O.P. Appeal Suit and Cross Objection 31 Mrs.Saroja 33/2002 A.S.No.996/2008 Nil 32 1.Mrs.Madhammal 2.K.Periyasamy 34/2002 A.S.No.997/2008 Nil 33 1.Subramani 2.Palaniappan 35/2002 A.S.No.998/2008 Nil 34 Krishnasamy Reddy 329/2002 A.S.No.999/2008 Nil 10. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the compensation fixed by the Court below was erroneous and it ought not to have increased the compensation from Rs.260/- per cent to Rs.211 per sq.ft. contrary to the guidelines prescribed under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquired lands are barren lands and are not located in a potential area. The lands are also situated far from the developed area and there are only very few residential plots. The exemplars of sale of plots of land produced by the claimants are small in extent and it should have been discarded by the Court below. The Court below did not even consider the taram, classification and suitability for cultivation of the land which it wants to compare. 11. In the cross objections filed by some of the claimants, it was contended that the evidence of the acquiring authority R.W.1 was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The Court below failed to appreciate that Exs.R3, R4, R11 and C61 are having different material particulars which was not explained by R.W.1. The rejection of Ex.C16 on the ground that it was not a true transaction was also erroneous since there was no evidence to substantiate. Similarly, mere suggestion put to the witnesses C.W.8 and C.W.9 to reject Ex.C16 was not enough and the credibility of Ex.C16 was not dislodged. The lands even at the time of notification under Section 4(1) were capable of being converted into house sites and as per Ex.C2, the lands were sold at the rate of Rs.24.90p per sq.ft. The Court below did not appreciate that the lands comprised in Ex.R14 dated 16.06.1997 were divided into house sites and were sold as house sites under Ex.C9 dated 26.10.1998 at the rate of Rs.18.18p per sq.ft and should have granted the same rate of compensation to the claimants. 12. It was also submitted by Mr.A.P.S.Kasturi Rangan, learned counsel for the cross objectors that while the Reference Court found that S.No.54 in the statistical data furnished was sold at Rs.45/- per sq. even on 26.08.1997 as per Ex.R3, whereas it granted compensation in respect of house sites at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft without any basis. Further when it granted compensation at Rs.30/- per sq.ft in respect of lands which are nowhere nearer to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.54, it denied the same compensation for the lands situated in S.No.54 itself and it was a paradox. He also submitted that in respect of acquisition of land in the Ammani Kondalampatti Village, the same Salem Taluk, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq.ft. But on appeal by the acquiring authority, a Division Bench of this Court after making a deduction of 20% fixed the compensation for the lands acquired from that village at Rs.100/- per sq.ft. Hence, there was no reason why the claimants in the Vengampatti Village should be denied the right to get the same rate of compensation especially when the purpose for acquisition was the same. While the Ammani Kondalampatti village (situated outside the Salem Corporation) is 7 kms from the Corporation, the Vengampatti Village is situated 5 kms from Ammani Kondalampatti Village and it is adjacent to the National Highways No.7 leading to Namakkal and passing through Mallur Town Panchayat. He also submitted that this Court for lands acquired for a Harijan Welfare Scheme vide notification dated 08.04.1991 in S.No.41/4B in Mallur Town Panchayat, the compensation granted by the Reference Court was at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.ft in LAOP No.2/94. The same was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.912 of 1997 dated 23.01.2009. Therefore, the Court below cannot grant compensation so low and deny similar benefit to the claimants. It is submitted that apart from confirming the judgment of the Reference Court, the compensation awarded should be increased in favour of the claimants. 13. Mr.Kasturi Rangan, learned counsel also submitted that Ammani Kondalampatti village is situated only on the area where Railway line is passing through whereas Vengampatti village will have a Railway Station right in the midst of the acquired land though the station is named as Mallur Railway Station as that portion comes within the Mallur Town Panchayat. Therefore, it has the benefits of future development and the commercial value of the land will considerably increase because of the new railway station. It is also submitted that the said railway station will be the first railway station after the Railway station at Salem. 14. Supplementing the arguments, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for one of the claimants submitted that if this Court enhance the compensation, it should also grant such enhanced compensation even to persons who are not before this Court. The Court can invoke power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for granting enhanced compensation even for the claimants who are not before this Court by collecting the requisite court fee from them. 15. Countering the said arguments, Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader supported by Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar submitted that Ammani Kondalampatti village is closer to the Salem City Corporation whereas Vengampatti village is a remote village. The Reference Court has considered the nature, tharam and soil of the land and fixed different rates of compensation and that the claimants cannot get uniform rate of compensation. He also submitted that the Award https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed in respect of Harijan Welfare Scheme in Mallur Panchayat stands on a different footing and cannot be compared with the acquisition made in the present case. He also referred to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act to contend that this Court cannot grant more compensation than what was claimed by the claimants. 16. In the light of the above rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is fair and proper? If the answer is in the negative then to what additional compensation to which the claimants/land owners are entitled to? 17. Before passing the Award, the Acquiring Authority considered the sale statistics collected from Vengampatti village for the period from 01.03.1996 to 28.02.1999 marked as Ex.R3. A copy of which is marked as Ex.R4. The Acquiring Authority in respect of both Nanja and Punja lands fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.64,220/- per hectare. As per the Topo Map marked as Ex.R2, the data land taken as the basis was situated on the northern east of Vengampatti lake in S.No.43. Therefore, the same land cannot be accepted as a data land. The data land is marked as Ex.R5 and recital found in the sale deed showed that it was sold for the purpose of discharging certain debts and for family expenses. It is undervalued and it was referred for enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. R.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that no doubt Ex.R5 showed that sale was due to discharging debt and he had rejected the other sale details where there was undervaluation of the same. He also admitted that the lands were classified into four classes and in the lands which were acquired there are number of houses found and roads were also passing through. Therefore, the Court below found that the data land in Ex.R5 cannot be representative of the acquired land and further Ex.R5 dated 17.06.1996 came into existence 32 months before Section 4(1) notification. 18. After rejecting the data land relied on by the Acquiring Authority, the Reference Court found that in L.A.O.P.Nos.29 to 33 of 2002, they were all house sites and having old S.Nos.118 and 120. After considering those lands along with the Topo Map, it can be seen that the Vengampatti Village and Mallur Village were divided near S.No.54 and on the southern side S.Nos.118 and 120 are found. Therefore, those lands can be taken as house sites. The data land found in Ex.R6 dated 06.03.1996 was taken as a basis. In that document, in S.No.54/16A7 the land to the extent of 1025 sq.ft was sold at the rate of Rs.5125/-. The land which was not developed but classified as Punja land in S.No.54 was selected as a basis also cannot be accepted. Therefore Ex.R6 also cannot be a representative of the marked rate fixed. Further if the lands are already classified as Nanja and Punja lands, the compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of rate per sq.ft. 19. The Reference Court also found that as per Ex.R3 out of 105 transactions 77 transactions were relating to sale of house plots https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and Vengampatti village is coming within the Mallur Town Panchayat and S.No.70 the road leading from Mallur to Mookuthipalayam is situated. Therefore, it can be safely said since substantial number of transactions were sold as house sites, the lands were well developed and the rate of compensation works out to Rs.5/- per sq.ft to Rs.18.18p per sq.ft. After analysing all the other sale deeds, the Court below recorded the finding that from the period from 1996 to 1997, the land were sold at Rs.900/- per cent and if an acre of such land is taken into account and sold out as house site plots then 30% will have to be provided for locating roads and drainage facilities and hence for S.Nos.17 to 19 and 22 to 26, it fixed the compensation at Rs.1,700/- per cent in respect of first category of land. In respect of second category of land, the Court below fixed Rs.1,000/- per cent, in respect of third category, it fixed Rs.3,000/- per cent and in respect of 4th category, it fixed the compensation at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. In respect of the lands in which well were found, it found that they have to be taken note of while ordering compensation in respect of individual cases. 20. Therefore, attacking the compensation fixed by a common judgment, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there was no scope for making separate rates of payment which was not done in the case of land acquisition in Ammani Kondalampatti and uniform rate was fixed that too on the basis of compensation per sq.ft rate. Secondly, it was contended that the entire lands were to be utilised for locating railway line and formation of railway station. Therefore, deductions towards development charges will not arise. It was also submitted that the claimants are entitled for an higher compensation. The learned counsel also submitted that the Reference Court considered S.No.54 wherein the land was sold at Rs.45/- per sq.ft. On 26.08.1997 that should have been fixed as compensation uniformly. But not only that compensation was not fixed for 4th category of lands found in S.Nos.118 and 120, 1/3 deduction was made at Rs.30/- by stating that they were classified as Punja Lands and even in respect of lands situated in and around S.No.54 this rate was not paid by the authorities. 21. Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for the acquiring authority after referring to the additional claim statement filed by the claimants before the Reference Court stated that in their additional claim statement, the claimants themselves have demanded only Rs.40/- initially and by additional claim demanded Rs.50/- per sq.ft and they cannot now seek for more. 22. It must be noted in the present case apart from the oral evidence given by the claimants, one Gnanasekaran Civil Engineer was examined for valuation report which were marked as Exs.C25 to C31. There were also sale deeds with reference to sale transaction in that area and Exs.C1, C2, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16 and C20 they were not considered by the Reference Court. It must also be noted that the Reference Court is not a Court of appeal but Original Court and in case of enhanced compensation, it is for the claimants to prove before the Court with material evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justifying enhanced compensation. In the present case, the evidence let in by the claimants C.W.1 to C.W.13 as well as exhibits referred to above in the form of exemplars of sale of land in that area were not at all considered by the Reference Court. It only went into analysis of the Award and the related proceedings including statistical data and with the aid of the Topo map fixed the compensation on its own. Even for making different classification, the Court below went only by the classification of records as found in the village records and did not take note of either their present day use as house plots or their potential use of those lands into a developing urban area in the context of a new railway station on the Salem Karur Line coming up in that area. Further if S.No.54 is valued at Rs.45/- per sq.ft, there is no scope to refuse that valuation either on the ground that it requires development charges. In the present case, the Railway line laid is on the existing land and the Station is also built up on the lands acquired and most of the lands were having houses as found in the award proceedings. Therefore, making deduction towards development charges will not arise. 23. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447. The Supreme Court held that deduction towards development charges is not uniform and the purpose for which land acquisition made is relevant in deciding whether any deduction towards development charges can be made or not. In that case, it was found that the lands were acquired for the purpose of laying railway line and therefore, the Court held the question of deducting any amount towards development charges will not arise. Paragraph 30 may be usefully extracted below:- "30. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3rd deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. However, the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat and