These are appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisi tion Act. 2. On basis of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 11-6-1985, 105-06 dismal which is equivalent to 168 bighas of land in village Dantal were proposed to be acquired for Sardhan Puri Housing Scheme of Meerut Development Authority. A part of the area proposed to be acquired was under challenge in writ jurisdiction and Supreme Court has directed stay of the acquisition proceeding. Accordingly, award was made under Section 11 of the Act in respect of 53 acres 51 dismal which is equiva lent to 85 bighas land. Land owners who were claiming market value at the rate ranging from 150 to 200 rupees per sq. yard not being satisfied with the belting of the land into two parts and offer of compensation at the rate of Rs. 37. 50 for roadside land to with of 100 mtrs. and 28. 13 for rest of the land, requested for references. Accordingly, references were made by the Land Acquisition Collector for determination of market value of land. References were heard in several batches. First batch was decided on 2-7-1990 where market value involved thereunder was determined Rs. 70 per sq. yard. In the second batch decided on 31-10-1990, the learned District Judge divided the land into two belts and held mat market value of road side land would be Rs. 75 per sq. yard and the other area would have market value of Rs. 56-35. A single case was decided on 28-8-1991 where market value of the land involv ed was determined at Rs. 70 per sq. yard. Fourth batch of references was decided on 8-1-1992 where market value was determined at Rs. 70 per sq. yard. In the last batch which was decided on 20-4- 1992 the area was divided into two belts and market value of road side laud of the determined at Rs. 75 per sq. yard and market value of rest of the land was determined at 56. 35 per sq. yard. Aggrieved by these decisions MDA has filed 22 appeals. Land owners have also filed independent appeals in some cases for enhancement of market value, in some of the appeals filed by land owners court fee had been paid by reducing enhanced claim and in rest of such appeals no court fee has yet been paid. 3. 35 per sq. yard. Aggrieved by these decisions MDA has filed 22 appeals. Land owners have also filed independent appeals in some cases for enhancement of market value, in some of the appeals filed by land owners court fee had been paid by reducing enhanced claim and in rest of such appeals no court fee has yet been paid. 3. Although filing of an appeal by MDA requires leave of this Court and such leave was not applied for at the time of hearing, a prayer was made to grant leave and taking into consideration the peculiar situation we have granted leave to MDA to continue the appeals. 4. Claimant under the reference under Section 18 of the Act stands in position of plaintiff in a suit. Onus lies upon him to prove that compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector is low and also to prove the market value at which he is entitled to compensation. To satisfy the same claimants have proved various sale deeds. They have also examined-witnesses to prove the nature of land. Added to it they have proved tae award in respect of land in village Nagla Kashi, and adjoining village where in April, 1980 land was acquired for purpose of National Highway bypass, by the side of the acquired land in these references. MDA has filed three sale-deeds In support of market value as determined by Land Acquisition Collector. To give us a clear idea about the land acquired, certain maps of the area acquired were filed for consideration as additional evidence. 5. Mr. Sudhir Chandra learned counsel for the appellant (MDA) sub mitted that the awards where no belting had been made and compensation has been awarded at uniform rate at Rs. 70 per sq. yard are vulnerable since the entire area does not consist of land having similar advantage as some of the acquired land are adjacent to the road passing through the acquired land and others are beyond the same. Those awards where the land is divided into two categories will be the acceptable mode to determine the market value. Mr. Sudhir Chandra relying upon the maps submitted that land adjacent to road lying in the area upto 100 metres wide will have more importance and land beyond those for another 100 metres width will have importance and rate would be lesser. Mr. Sudhir Chandra relying upon the maps submitted that land adjacent to road lying in the area upto 100 metres wide will have more importance and land beyond those for another 100 metres width will have importance and rate would be lesser. For other land far beyond there would be third rate which would be lesser than the first two, Mr. Sudhir Chandra submitted that system of belting in correct mode for determination of compensation for 85 bighas land which are subject-matter of these appeals, He submitted that for this purpose area which belongs to land owners have been subject-mat ter for determination of market value but the entire area covering the scheme is to be taken into consideration. Mr. Surohi learned counsel for some of the land owners, Mr. Goel, learned counsel for some other land owners and Mr. P. K. Jain, learned counsel for some other land owners have submitted that belting method is not appropriate to be adopted in the present case since there is clear oral evidence that land acquired in the entire area have similar advantages. They have relied upon the map produced by the appellant MDA to show that there are various roads by the side as well as within the acquired area. Oral evidence was brought to our notice to show that on all four sides of the acquired area, there are roads. 6. Both the parties relied upon the decision reported in 1993 Vol. IV SCC 245, Gulzara Singh & On. v. State of Punjab & Ors. , in support of their respective cases on the principle of belting. This decision lays down that the principle of belting is perfectly legal but the same would depend on facts and circumstances each case. In 1993 Vol IV SCC 245 (supra) the existence of road within the area acquired and other circumstances were taken into consideration to hold that the principle of belting would not be appropriate. This is relied upon by learned counsel for land owners to submit that the principle of belting adopted in some of the awards was not correct. We agree with submission of learned counsel for land owners that the principle of belting would not be applicable in the present case as the map filed by MDA clearly indicates that land in the entire area have similar advantage. We agree with submission of learned counsel for land owners that the principle of belting would not be applicable in the present case as the map filed by MDA clearly indicates that land in the entire area have similar advantage. Oral evidence in this respect has not been effectively demolished by cross examination. Thus, we are of the view that one rate would be available for entire area acquired. 7. Most important question in this case determination of market value. Various sale-deeds produced show dissimilarity in rates in respect of land transacted therein. Besides, all the sale-deeds are in respect of small strips of land. Some of the sale-deeds are of year 1983, some are 1984 and one is of the year 1985. It is dated 15-4-1985. In respect of all the sale-deeds neither vendor nor vendee has been examined to explain the rates to fine out cause for variance in rates. Therefore, it is difficult to accept any of the sale-deeds as exemplar in absence of the explanation as to rate at which consideration was paid. 8. Award filed in these references as exemplar is in respect of acquisition of land in different village and is in respect of land proposed to be acquired in the year 1980. In this view of the matter the award cannot be relied upon as exemplar. In such a situation where no oral evidence is available to explain the reason for consideration paid in the sale-deeds and in some of the sale-deeds the market value as indicated is different than the consideration proposed to be paid and award is not acceptable, we are to make a reasonable guess work to determine market value. 9. Khasra No. 77 is within the acquired land although acquisition of the same is subject-matter of dispute and acquisition proceedings have remain ed stayed. Yet the sale-deeds throw some light to determine the market value. There is clear evidence that the sale-deed in respect of small area in Khasra No. 77 was divided into small plots leaving a road of 30 ft. wide for beneficial enjoyment of the plots. We have already stated that in absence of examination of vendor or vendee rate cannot be accepted. Even though a part of the land under acquisition was subject-matter of transaction prior to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. wide for beneficial enjoyment of the plots. We have already stated that in absence of examination of vendor or vendee rate cannot be accepted. Even though a part of the land under acquisition was subject-matter of transaction prior to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In absence of any evi dence that sale is not a bona fide transaction, the consideration paid can be taken note of in spite of variance. Learned counsel for land owners submitted that the transactions are of the year 1984 when notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had been published in 1985. Normally market value increase gradually. Mr. Sudhir Chandra on the other hand submitted that the rates in the three sale deeds are so inconsistent that no reliance can be placed and accordingly the awards given by the reference court are liable to be set aside. We are not inclined to accept this submission of Mr. Sudhir Chandra taking into consideration all the document we find that in the year 1984 market value was Rs. 100 per sq. yard and in absence of any evidence in respect of rate of increase in market value per year we can conclude that rate of land near about 1984 was Rs. 100 pet sq. yard. It is well known that a bona fide purchaser would not be willing to pay consideration at the same rate for a large area of land which he will be willing to pay for a small strip of land. Therefore, some deduction are to be made to find the market value. 20% to 53% have been deducted in various decisions of the Supreme Court depending upon facts and circumstances of the case. In most of the decisions deduction of I/3rd has been allowed in respect of acquisition of vast area. Therefore, deducting 33% from Rs. 100 the rate comes to about Rs 66-67 per sq. yard. It is well known that mathematics can be utilised as servant but should not be a master of an adjudicator in determining compensation. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the market value at Rs. 70 per sq. yard is reasonable rate for determination of the compensation payable to each land owner. 10. On finding out that market value of the entire area is at the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the market value at Rs. 70 per sq. yard is reasonable rate for determination of the compensation payable to each land owner. 10. On finding out that market value of the entire area is at the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. yard, inconsistency arises as in some of the cases landowners have been directed to be paid at the rate of 65. 35 and no valid challenge has been made by them to the award. Land owner whose land having similar advantages have been acquired under the same notification are to get compen sation at the same rate. Therefore, those claimants who have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 56. 35 per sq. yard would also be paid compen sation at the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. yard, such payment would be subject to condition that court- fee payable on the enhanced amount is to be paid by them to take benefit of the award failing which they will have to be satisfied with Rs. 56. 35 p. per sq. yard. 11. Learned counsel for land owners have raised an interesting question relating to interest payable. Interest is payable on enhanced compensation which includes market value, compensation under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act. Directive for payment of interest is discretionary which is to be judicially considered. Claimants who could have adduced better evidence having failed for unexplained reasons, we direct amount of enhanced compensation would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum in case amount awarded in these appeals ase paid within two months if not paid earlier. 12. In result the appeals and cross objections are allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .