The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's discretion in fixing the market value of acquired lands, considering factors such as appreciation of land value, deduction towards developmental charges, and the public purpose of the acquisition.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

Acquisition proceedings initiated for laying a broad gauge railway line-Salem-Karur Project. acquired lands are situated in two villages Namakkal and Kosavampatti. In the appeals f against the compensation awarded in the L.A.O.Ps., this Court on 06-10-2005 held that determination of the market value had been made on the basis of sale deeds which were relevant and which do not reflect the correct value and therefore, without directing a de novo and findings were called for from the Court below. The parties were allowed to let in evidence the market value of the lands acquired.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal has submitted his findings. For the purpose arriving at the value of the lands he has divided the lands in Kosavampatti Village into three p and the lands in the Namakkal Village also into three parts. From the sale deeds produced by claimants, the learned Sub-Judge chose those documens which he found were acceptable fixed the market value. He applied 10% or 15% appreciation; Deduction was also given developmental charges. For reasons given in the finding some lands were exempt from deduction. The various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court have also b relied on by the learned trial Judge for arriving at his finding.

.3. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, for the Railways and the learned Se Counsel Mr. R. Krishnamurthy for the claimants made their submissions. Both were aggrieved the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. Broadly, the objections of both sides were w regard to (a) the percentage of appreciation given for each year for arriving at the value, (b) percentage fixed for developmental charges and (c) the choice of the sale deed taken to fix value. The learned Subordinate Judge had in some cases taken 15% as the appreciation for e year whereas according to Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel, 10% appreciation ou alone was correct. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the manner in which appreciation should be calculated. AIR 2002 SC 1558(Special Land Acquisition Officer ,BY Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib was referred to. It is extracted:

."The appreciation of value of land at 10% on the base price of Rs.3/- per sq.ft. would increas value of the land @0.30 paise per year. 0.30 paise multiplied by 7 would come to Rs.2.10 pa If the appreciation in value of the land for the next seven years is taken at Rs.2.10paise added to the base value of Rs.3/-, the market value of the land under acquisition in year 1 would come to Rs.5.10 paise."

4. As regards depreciation, the Sub-Court had adopted different rates for different lands. regards the developmental charges, 50% was deducted in some cases, 25% in others and some cases 30%. The learned Senior Counsel for the Railways submitted that nothing less t 1/3rd deduction should be given.

.5. Some decisions were cited with regard to the deduction for developmental charges. In Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) (1997 (5) SCC 426, 40% deduction by High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court since the sale deeds were of small pieces of l and the market value of large tracts of land had to be arrived at. In Basavva Vs. Spl. L Acquisition Officer (1996 (9) SCC 640), the sale deeds of small part of land were taken as ba for arriving at the market value and the Supreme Court upheld that the deduction between 33 and 53% was valid. In Basant Kumar Vs. Union of India (1996 11 SCC 542) it was held atleast one third of the compensation should be deducted towards providing amenities, like roa parks, electricity, sewage, water facilities etc. In Shimla Development Authority Vs. Sant Sharma (1997 (2) SCC 637) 40% deduction towards development charges was held proper. In Hanumantha Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer (AIR 2004 SC 1185) Supreme Court held as follows:

."The acquired land may be having high potential value but that itself per se cannot b