compensation @ 85 per sq. meters in respect of the
lands which were acquired. He submitted that the
lower court had relied on the land reference awards
bearing nos.4/88, 6/88, 10/88, 12/88, and 14/88 in
which compensation @ Rs.85 per sq. meters was
granted and had without comparing the said lands in
question with the lands in the present case, the
reference Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.85/-
per sqr. meters. He further submitted that this
finding which was recorded by the lower Court was
inconsistent with the finding which was recorded in
the same paragraph. He submitted that the lower
Court after observing that the certified copy of the
Judgment in land reference no.1/97 on which reliance
was placed by the claimant could not be considered
since the claimants had not brought on record the
similarity between the lands under acquisition in
this land reference thereafter, in the same
paragraph, the learned Judge had relied on land
reference bearing L.R.4, 6, 12, 14 of 1988 which
were not even part of the record. He submitted that
the order passed by the lower Court was completely
arbitrary and the lower Court was not justified in
relying on land reference nos.4/88, 6/88, 10/88,
12/88 and 14/88 which were decided by the same Court
before the award in the present case was passed. He
submitted that approach of the lower Court was
therefore, contrary to law and contrary to the well
established principles laid down by the Hon’ble
