S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. Claimant land owners are appellants in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. On basis of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 1-11-1983, 4 bighas of land in plot Nos. 77 an 69 belonging to various owners were acquired for construction of approach road and subsi diary roads to the fly over on State Highway No. 24 in revenue village Chipiniya Bujurg. Land of appellants measures 2 bighas 14 biswas which is part of plot No. 77. Land Acquisition Collector carved out the entire acquired area into three belts of 100 metres with each. Market value of land in the first belt adjacent to Grant Trunk Road was determined at Rs. 72 per sq. yard. For the second belt adjacent to first belt market value was determined at Rs. 54 per sq. yard and for the third belt market value was determined at Rs. 48 per sq. yard. Claimant appellant were demanding compensation at the rate of Rs. 325 per sq. yard for plot No. 77 on basis of the circle rate fixed by Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act (U. P. Amendment) at the rate of Rs. 300 per sq, yard in the year 1982 which was increased to Rs. 500 per sq. yard in 1985. Being dissatisfied with the rate offered, claimant appellants requested for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to civil court for determination of market value. Land owners of plot No. 69 also requested for a reference. Land Acquisition made two references i to civil court which were heard together and impugned award under Section 26 of the Act was made. This appeal is confined to 2 bighas 14 biswas of land in plot No. 77 belonging to appellants. 3. Claimant in a reference proceeding stands in position of plaintiff in a suit. In the proceeding in civil court onus lies on him to prove that award under Section 11 of the Act by the Collector is wrong on facts and law and also to prove the rate of prevailing market value of acquired land on the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 4. In the proceeding in civil court onus lies on him to prove that award under Section 11 of the Act by the Collector is wrong on facts and law and also to prove the rate of prevailing market value of acquired land on the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 4. For determination of market value claimant is to satisfy the civil court that the rate at which he claims compensation is the rate which a seller expects and a bona fide purchaser was willing to pay on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, when the land acquired was subject-matter of sale transaction before a few days of preliminary notification, the same would be the best evidence for determination of market value unless the rate received by the seller is explained to be low for any special reasons. Claimant is to explain the same. Where the land acquired was not the subject-matter of any transaction but a part of the same plot which also includes the acquired plot, was subject-matter of sale transaction within a short period before preliminary notification, rate available in the transaction would be a safe guide to determine market value of the acquired land. If claimant demands compensation at a higher rate, he is to satisfy the court why the rate at which consideration was paid for a portion of the plot was low. Where such transaction is also not available, court would search for contemporaneous transactions of land in the vicinity of the acquired land with similar advantages. If the same is also not available, court would not be justified to reject a claim altogether on the ground that claimant could not prove the prevailing market value of acquired land but shall make a reason able guess work from the available materials whether in shape of oral evidence of other documentary evidence on record. Authorities empowered to determine market value for compensating a land owner should not treat the proceeding as a civil suit and decide the issue in strict standards of appreciation of evidence in a suit. Authorities empowered to determine market value for compensating a land owner should not treat the proceeding as a civil suit and decide the issue in strict standards of appreciation of evidence in a suit. It is to be remembered that owner of the land not willing to part with the same is being compulsorily deprived of his land for public purpose and is entitled to just compensation which should not be sound of profit to him at the cost of the State Exchequer or he should not be penalised because he is not able to provide best evidence. It is, however, always to be remembered that normally the best evidence would be brought to record by a person who seeks adjudication in his favour. Where court is not satisfied about the market value on basis of contemporaneous transactions or such materials are not available it reverts to method of capitalisation of annual profit of the land owner from the acquired land and awards compensation from which claimant can get profit which would be just equivalent to the loss of annual profit. If no material is available to adopt this method also Court would search for valuation by experts. Where materials are available for all the three methods, court would be justified to con sider them together for determination of market value. It, is however, to be remembered always that no two areas may be same either in respect of situation or the extent or the potentiality and it is not always possible in all cases to have reliable materials from which valuation can be accurately deter mined. Thus, estimation of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many im ponderables and it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjuncture or guess. However, the said guess or con juncture should not have a look of arbitrariness or favouritism and therefore, court has to depend upon its judicial experience where it would support its estimation by reasons. 5. Learned Trial Judge has accepted the belting of the acquired land as has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector. He accepted the sale transaction of a portion of plot No. 77 by the appellants in the year 1983 a few months before the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) which reflected a rate of Rs. 105 per sq. yd. He accepted the sale transaction of a portion of plot No. 77 by the appellants in the year 1983 a few months before the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) which reflected a rate of Rs. 105 per sq. yd. and from that estimated the market value of the acquired land in three belts at Rs. 72 as determined by Land Acquisition officer though he was of the view that it should have been Rs. 70. 35 per sq. yd. He determined market value of 2nd belt at Rs. 63. 31 and of 3rd belt at Rs. 56. 28. This is grievance of the claimants. 6. Belting of acquired land measuring only 2 bighas 14 biswas in plot No. 77 is seriously contested in appeal in view of smallness in area and situa tion of land having grand trunk road on one side and bye- pass on another side connecting the Grand Trunk Road. Existence of a village road in the middle of plot No. 77 is also highlight to submit that in absence of any evidence that any part of the acquired land cannot be conveniently be used without development, method of belting should not have been accepted. There appears to be some force in contention of appellants. On the facts of this case we are inclined to hold that the entire area of 2 bighas 14 biswas have the same advantages and belting was not appropriate. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that Collector having deter mined market value at Rs. 300 per sq, yard in 1983 for the purpose of stamp duty in exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and State Government having directed that compensation in to be paid in accordance with circle rate determined for the village, Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned trial Judge ought to have determined market value on Rs. 325 per sq. yard as it is a common knowledge that there is gradual increase in price and on 1-11-1983 when preliminary notification was published and increase of Rs. 25 only as claimed by land owners is reasonable. Strenuous submissions were made to distinguish the decisions of Supreme Court as well as other courts that circle rate is not a period of evidence to guide the court to estimate the market value. 25 only as claimed by land owners is reasonable. Strenuous submissions were made to distinguish the decisions of Supreme Court as well as other courts that circle rate is not a period of evidence to guide the court to estimate the market value. It is submitted that in those decisions circle rates fixed were not statutory but in Uttar Pradesh they are statutory. Submission of learned counsel was attractive and for some time influenced our mind. But on consideration of the guidelines laid down by various decisions, we find that the price the seller expects and a bona fides purchaser is willing to pay for the land is the market value, circle rate does not satisfy the test which is a rate fixed for fiscal purposes only. It better evidence like sale of a portion of the land by the land owners themselves out of plot No. 77 a few months back would not have been available we might have considered how the circle rate would guide the court for estimation of market value. In this case consideration of submission of learned counsel for appellant would be of academic interest only. Therefore, we do not rely upon the same and agree with the trial court that sale deed of a portion of the land in plot No. 77 a few months earlier can be safely used for estimation of market value of land acquired in plot No. 77. 8. In the sale-deed a small area of 200 sq. yards was sold at the rate of Rs. 105 per sq. yard sale-deeds are dated 8-6-1983 and 27-6-1983, within five months from notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 1-1-1983. Even accepting that there is gradual increase in price of land, in absence of any evidence as to rates of increase, we may assume the rate of increase at Rs. 5 per sq. yd. within six months. Thus, on 1-11-1983 rate of the land would have been Rs. 110 per sq. yd. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that acquired land was adjacement to Grant Trunk Road and would have higher valuation since land sold was beyond the Grand Trunk Road. A map of the area has been filed as additional evidence in appeal in support of this situation of the land. 110 per sq. yd. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that acquired land was adjacement to Grant Trunk Road and would have higher valuation since land sold was beyond the Grand Trunk Road. A map of the area has been filed as additional evidence in appeal in support of this situation of the land. We might have entertained this additional evidence if there would not have been any other evidence as the same would have helped us to find out the situation of the land. We, however, find that other materials available on record support appellant. Therefore, in absence of any cogent explanation why land owners did not produce this material piece of evidence in trial court, we are not inclined to encourage laches of parties by entertaining additional evidence at appellate stage. Even though we reject prayer of appellants for entertaining additional evidence, we accept submission of learned counsel for appellant that acquired land has as better situation than the land sold under the sale-deeds. 9. Aforesaid finding requires us to consider the price that would have been paid by the purchaser for 200 sq. yard of land if the same would have been adjacent to the road. In absence of any material in this respect, we make a reasonable guess work that the purchaser would have paid Rs. 120 per sq. yard for the land in the same would have been adjacent to Grant Trunk Road and would have been sold on 1-11- 1983. 10. Learned standing counsel submitting that area under the sale deed is hardly 200 sq. yards each. A bona fide purchaser would not be willing to pay at that same rate for 2 bighas 14 biswas of land as he would be willing to pay for hardly 200 sq. yards (1 bighas - 3025 sq. yard ). There is forced in contention of learned standing counsel. Therefore, a willing pur chaser would pay at much less a rate. 11. Question now becomes important is the rate for a large area of 2 bighas 14 biswas when the rate for a small strip of land measuring 200 yards is sold at the rate of Rs. 120 per sq. yard. If the entire area of 2 bighas 14 biswas is plotted out to small areas of 200 sq. yard each, some space has to be left for convenient use of each plot. 120 per sq. yard. If the entire area of 2 bighas 14 biswas is plotted out to small areas of 200 sq. yard each, some space has to be left for convenient use of each plot. In respect of building projects, a guideline has been accepted that l/3rd would have to be deduction from rate for small strip of land when the building project is on a large area acquired. There is no evidence in this case as to the area that would be left out for convenient use of a plot of 200 sq. yard when entire 2 bighas 14 biswas are hypothetically fragmented to small plots of that area. In absence of any evidence, it would not be unreasonable to deduct l/3rd. There fore, market value of the acquired area is determined at the rate of Rs. 80 per sq. yard. 12. On our finding that for an area of 2 bigha 14 biswas only Belting method should not be applied as the entire area has similar advantages, we come to conclusion that appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 80 per sq. yard for the entire 2 Bighas 14 Biswas of land in plot No. 77 acquired on basis of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 1-11-1983. 13. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act being on 1-11-1983 and award under Section 11 of the Act being on 13-12-1984 appellants are entitled to solatium under Section 23 (2), interest under Section 28 and benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. 14. In result, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal as appellants have made unreasonable claim which we have not accepted. Appeal partly allowed. .