JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is an appeal from the decision of the first Subordinate Judge of Chapra in a Land Acquisition case. The claimant claimed Rs. 3,395 and odd in respect of 1 bigha, 9 cottahs odd of land and the amount allowed him is a little over Rs. 500. There was also a claim for damaged crop. He claimed Rs. 231 and Rs. 57 have been allowed. As regards this part of the appeal, we do not propose to interfere with the decision of the Court below. It is not an easy thing in these cases to ascertain what the true market value of the land is Both the Collector and the Subordinate Judge have proceeded on the footing of ascertaining what the selling value of land in the neighbourhood was, and have assessed the compensation with regard to the value so ascertained. The letting value of the land here has not been ascertained : and, apparently, was not ascertainable. That being so, the better course would appear to be to ascertain what is the annual value of the produce, in other words what the tenant makes out of the land. In this particular case I do not think that the purchase value of neighbouring lands is a very reliable guide. The better course, I think, is to try and find out what the tenant makes out of the land. The tenant here, no doubt, makes a very exaggerated claim, but he says that, though the net annual value of the produce is Rs. 250 per bigha, in order to avoid the harassment of a suit, he has reduced his claim to Rs. 100 per bigha, and he has adduced evidence in support of that statement. The evidence exaggerated his case, but the amount given by the Court below at the rate of Rs. 20 and Rs. 30 per bigha as the annual value of the produce is too low. There is no evidence on this head adduced on the part of the Government, that is, as to the annual value of the produce, so that in one sense, the evidence of the claimants stands unchallenged, and, if we thought that quite reliable, we might have awarded a much higher amount than we propose to do. There is no evidence on this head adduced on the part of the Government, that is, as to the annual value of the produce, so that in one sense, the evidence of the claimants stands unchallenged, and, if we thought that quite reliable, we might have awarded a much higher amount than we propose to do. The evidence of the claimant is exaggerated, white, on the other hand, the value put upon the lands by the Court below is too low, If we strike an average between the 30 rupees per bigha given by the Court below and the Rs. 100 per bigha claimed by the Appellant, we think we shall get fairly close to the real annual value, and after the best consideration we can give to the case, we think that the annual profits should be assessed at Rs. 75 instead of Rs. 30 per bigha. The decree of the Court below will accordingly be varied and the Appellant will be allowed compensation for the lands claimed at the rate of Rs. 75 per bigha, and will also be entitled to the usual statutory allowance at 15 per cent., and interest with costs in proportion. We do not interfere with the other parts of the decree.