S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. These two appeals are under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Land owners have filed a cross objection under Order XLI, Rule 22, C. P. C. for enhancement of compensation awarded. 2. State of Uttar Pradesh compulsorily acquired 16 Bighas 18 Biswas of land on basis of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 9-5-1970 for benefit of the appellant, a statutory authority for Land Development and Housing Scheme No. 7. Land owners made a claim for compensation on basis of prevailing market value at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard. Land Acquisition Collector offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 18. 75 for first bolt and Rs. 12. 50 for second belt. Land owners requested for reference under Section 18 of the Act on basis of which references were made. Learned VII Additional District Judge having awarded compensation determining market value at Rs. 28. 35 per sq. yard, appeals and cross objec tions have been filed. 3. Acquired land is situated adjacent to Meerut-Hapur Road, Meerut-Garh Road, Meerut-Quadipur Road and Meerut Shergarhi Road on the main road coming from Meerut City. Acquired land belonged to various land owners. In respect of all the land owners references were made. At diffe rent times, different presiding officers decided some of the references. These awards have been filed as exemplars in two references from which these two appeals arise. 4. Before learned Trial Judge learned counsel for the State Govern ment accepted the position that entire area acquired have same potentialities. This has not been challenged by appellants in these two appeals. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of these two appeals it can be concluded that portions of the land of different owners from out of the total area acquired under the same notification for the same purpose, have similar advan tages. 5. In Land Acquisition reference No. 245 of 1983 market value of a portion of the acquired land was considered. Learned VIII Additional District Judge determined market value at Rs. 26. 25 per sq. yard. This is exemplar No. 5 (Paper No. 16/c. ). In L. R. Reference No. 26 of 1987, however, learned 3rd Addl. District Judge awarded compensation determining market value at Rs. 30. 45 per sq. Learned VIII Additional District Judge determined market value at Rs. 26. 25 per sq. yard. This is exemplar No. 5 (Paper No. 16/c. ). In L. R. Reference No. 26 of 1987, however, learned 3rd Addl. District Judge awarded compensation determining market value at Rs. 30. 45 per sq. yard considering sale-deed dated 26-12-1967 where consideration passed at the rate of Rs. 40. 60 per sq. yard. All these exmplars have been considered by trial Court to come to conclusion that rate of land under these two references is Rs. 28. 35 per sq. yard. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that sale-deed dated 26-12-1967 cannot be accepted since the same is a remote sale deed not reflecting a contemporaneous transaction in respect of land having similar advantages situated in the vicinity. It is submitted that claimant land owner in a reference under Section 18 of the Act stands in position of plaintiff in a suit and heavy onus lies on him to prove that statutory offer by Collector in award under Section 11 of the Act is grossly low or is otherwise unreason able He is further to prove the market value at which he claims compensa tion. In these reference, land owners have relied upon the reflected in the awards as well as the sale-deed. For considering rate reflected in the sale deed claimant is required to examine either the vendor or the purchaser to explain the circumstances under which such high rate was fixed. He is also required to prove that land under the sale-deed and land under acquisition have similar advantages. There being no such material on record, learned District Judge ought to have confirmed the awards under Section 11 of the Act. 7. Submission of learned counsel, though attractive is bereft of any substance. Awards under Section 11 of the Act are vulnerable on their face when Collector did not consider the question of determination of market value correctly. Division of land into two belts is not correct on the acceptance by Collector in trial Court that acquired land have same potentialities. Once the awards are awarded for this simple reason, learned District Judge was required to determine the market value. To this extent land owners discharged their onus. 8. Learned counsel for appellant thereafter, submitted that land under acquisition having similar advantages rate of Rs. 26. Once the awards are awarded for this simple reason, learned District Judge was required to determine the market value. To this extent land owners discharged their onus. 8. Learned counsel for appellant thereafter, submitted that land under acquisition having similar advantages rate of Rs. 26. 25 in the maximum could have been awarded which is also a much higher rate. Mr. S. K. Verma, learned counsel for land owner claimants on the other hand submitted that sale- deed dated 26-12-1967 should have been accepted and market value ought to have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard. 9. Contentions of either parties is not acceptable. The very fact that in 1967 rate was agreed to be Rs. 40. 60 per sq. yard itself leads Jo an inference that three years after the rate would increase, Thus, on the own claim of land owners that market value in 1970 is at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard, land under the sale-deed would be of superior quality having better advan tages. This sale-deed cannot guide the court for determination of market value. 10. Normally, on the materials available previous awards in respect of a portion of the acquired land would give adequate guidance to accept the same as in cases where land of various owners are acquired and some have been awarded compensation at one rate others would also get compensation at the same rate when similar lands contiguous to each other have been acquired under the same preliminary notification for the same purpose. In the present appeals we, however, find that in two awards rate was determined at Rs. 26. 25 per sq. yard and in another award rate has been fixed at Rs. 30. 45 per sq. yard we would have accepted submission of Mr. Verma that where two rates which are not widely diversent for similar land are available, land owners who lost their land should be awarded compensation at higher rate. Mr. Verma is also correct that trial court is not justified to find an average of the different rates. But this is not an absolute rule to be followed in all circum stances. It is to be remembered that in estimating market value, many im ponderables are faced by Courts and there is bound to be some guesswork in estimation. Mr. Verma is also correct that trial court is not justified to find an average of the different rates. But this is not an absolute rule to be followed in all circum stances. It is to be remembered that in estimating market value, many im ponderables are faced by Courts and there is bound to be some guesswork in estimation. Where guesswork in the same situation varies and Court esti mates at a rate in between the two rates which has not much difference and cannot be said to be unreasonable, appellate Court should not interfere where claimant made claim at a disproportionate rate taking chance to make a profit which he is not able to support by cogent evidence. No precedent would be of any assistance to the Court as decisions are rendered on facts and circum stances of each case. 11. In result, appeals and cross-objection are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. .