concurred with the reasonings of competent authority without making endeavor to consider the evidence produced by appellants independently/objectively. Learned Senior Counsel, in order to show indignation regarding market price of the land in question, submits that the very basis of such assessment is not founded on any substantial piece of evidence. Taking a dig at note/report from office of Tehsildar/Sub-Registrar, learned Senior Counsel has argued with potential that market price of the land @ Rs.3.44, 4.42 & 25 per sq.ft. respectively is ipse dixit of Tehsildar/SubRegistrar. Learned Senior Counsel, while questioning the award of competent authority, has urged that in determining the compensation, it has failed to apply other relevant principles/criterion, viz., location of the land in question, its potentiality, development in and around the land in question, etc., which is pre-requisite under Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that competent authority, while recording the land in question as “Padat” and “Undeveloped”, has not at all cared to consider report dated 08.10.2002 and the map prepared by Patwari, which shows that the land in question is abutting NH-79 and the eastern boundary of the land in question touches NH-79, besides its southern boundary touching Krishi Upaj Mandi. Placing heavy reliance on the map produced by appellant-claimants, showing distance of the acquired land from NH-79, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bus Stand, Railway Station Raila, Primary Health Center (hospital) etc., learned Senior Counsel contends that the award passed by competent authority is not based on the criterion for determination of compensation as per Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956. Learned Senior Counsel, while referring to application under Section 34(1) of the Act,
