M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act directed against the judgment and award dated 2. 6. 1975 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi determining the market value of Sardrakhti rights at Rs. 2. 000. 00 per bigha for the land of the appellants situated in Village Malikpur Chhawni. acquired by the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 3. 12. 1962. ( 2 ) THE appellants are Sardrakhtidars in respect of the land which came to be acquired under the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 on 3. 10. 1962. A Saidrakhtidar is a man who is a tenant of the land paying rent to the owner, but is the owner of the trees. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award determined the compensation in respect of the Sardrakhti rights of the appellants at Rs. 85. 200. 00 in all. It may be mentioned here that the Land Acquisition Officer while determining the aforesaid compensation took into consideration a previous award in respect of field No s 391 and 392 acquired by award No. 1525. the preliminary notification of which was issued under Section 4 on 20. 7. 1962 and wherein the rate of Rs. 2. 000. 00 per ( 3 ) BEING ctis-satisfied with the aforesaid award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants preferred a Reference Petition on the basis of which the Reference Court on consideration of the evidence on record found thatthe reasoning given by the Land Acquisition Collector in not awarding Rs. 2,000. 00 per bigha which was the compensation awarded in the aforesaid previous award in respect of field Nos. 391 and 392 is not valid and based on proper appreciation. The learned Judge found that field No,391 adjoins field No. 392 which abuts on the Grand Trunk Road and field No. 384 adjoins field No. 385 which also abuts on Grant Trunk Road and field No. 390 adjoins 386 which too abuts on the Grand Trunk Road. Under the aforesaid circumstances the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the findings and the reasoning of the Collector was not proper. So far as Ex. Under the aforesaid circumstances the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the findings and the reasoning of the Collector was not proper. So far as Ex. A-11 which is a copy of the certificate of sale in respect of land measuring 66 bighas and 7 biswas in Village Sadhora Kalan on which much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, the learned Judge found that the said sale is undoubtedly proximate in point of time to the present acquisition but the same relates to another village which is nearerto Delhi and is much more valuable than the similar rights in the land in dispute. The learned Judge, therefore, did not consider the said copy of the certificate of sale to be relevant forthe purpose of determining the compensation in respect of the Sardrakhti rights of the appellants and considered the previous award No. 1525 wherein the compensation for such right was fixed at Rs. 2,000. 00 per bigha to be more relevant forthe purpose of determining the compensation for similar rights in respect of the present lands and accordingly determined the Sardrakhti rights in the land in dispute evaluated at Rs. 2,000. 00 per bigha. ( 4 ) THE appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge have preferred this appeal. We have been taken through the contents of Ex. A-10, which is a document through which the sale was effected in respect of Sardrakhti rights in favour of the appellants pertaining to the land in dispute in the year 1958. The aforesaid sale was effected on 28. 5. 1958 although the certificate of sale was issued on 15. 2. 1972. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that the learned Judge erred in law and on facts in not relying upon the contents of Ex. A-11 which is a sale in respect of similar rights of Sardrakhti in a village which is adjacent to Malikpur Chhawrn , wherein the present land is situated. According to the learned counsel the Sardrakhti rights auctioned by sale certificate Ex. A-11 was within 3 months of the sale of the land under appeals and also similarly situated with the land involved in the present appeal. According to the learned counsel the Sardrakhti rights auctioned by sale certificate Ex. A-11 was within 3 months of the sale of the land under appeals and also similarly situated with the land involved in the present appeal. Under the aforesaid circumstances the learned counsel submitted that the lands of Ex A-11 and the present land being similar in all respects it would be reasonable and fair to award the same rate of compensation to the appellants as was the rate of auction purchase of Ex. A-11. which was at Rs. 3,338. 00 per bigha adding thereto the increase of price for 4 years from 1958-1962. ( 5 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the aforesaid exhibits produced in the present proceedings we find that the land of Ex. A-11 could not be said to be similarly located or could be said to have similar potential value with the land involved in the present appeal in as much as Sardrakhti rights of the land of Ex. A-11 was sold in the year 1958 at a much higher price than the Sardrakhti rights of the land in the present appeal It could be seen that the Sardrakhti rights in the land of Ex. A-10 was sold at almost half of the price in the same year i. e. in the year 1958. when Sardrakhti rights of land covered by Ex. A-11 was sold. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that for the purpose of determination of compensation for the Sardrakhti rights in respect of the present land Ex. A-11 has no relevance and cannot be said to be reliable or safe guide to determine the compensation in the present case We find that Sardrakhti Rights in similar lands was acquired in respect of file No. s 391 and 392 by award No 1525, preliminary notification of which was issued on 2. 0. 7. 1962 and the rate of Rs. 2. 000. 00 per bigha was awarded thereto. The said notification could be said to be in proximity of time with the notification issued in the present appeal, and as has been found by the learned Additional District Judge the lands of both the cases are similarly situated having similar potential value being abutted by the Grand Trunk Road. 2. 000. 00 per bigha was awarded thereto. The said notification could be said to be in proximity of time with the notification issued in the present appeal, and as has been found by the learned Additional District Judge the lands of both the cases are similarly situated having similar potential value being abutted by the Grand Trunk Road. We further find on record that oral evidence has been led by the appellants showing improvement made in the land by the appellants subsequent to their purchase of the Sardrakhti rights of the said land in the year 1958. Since there has been data or evidence available on record showing improvement on the said lan"d, we consider it proper to determine the market value of the said land at a little higher rate than what was awarded in the award No. 1525 determined at Rs. 2,000. 00 per bigha. It is well settled that while fixing the market value some guess work is always inherent. Besides, with regard to the improvements made in the said land by the appellants in respect of their Sardrakhti rights fixation of the same will always be based on some sort of guess work which can never be aptly proved with definite and conclusive evidence. ( 6 ) IN the result, we allow the appeal holding that Rs. 2. 750. 00 per bigha would be just and reasonable compensation for the acquisition of the Sardrakhti rights of the appellants in respect of the aforesaid land and we order that the appellants be paid the aforesaid amount per bigha for their Sardrakhti rights in respect of the acquired land. Over and above the appellants shall also be entitled to 15% solatium and 6% interest on the aforesaid enhanced amount from the date of taking over possession till the date of payment. We also allow costs to the appellants which shall be proportionate to the court fee payable.