JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. In our opinion certain aspects with regard to the valuation and location of the land have not been properly discussed and therefore, the matters require reconsideration by the High Court. For instance, we may say that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10th March, 1988. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs.135/- per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated, which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard had been awarded.

4. We are of the view that the afore-stated aspects have not been clarified because normally the price of the land goes on increasing, but the reason as to why lesser amount has been given to the appellants, has not been properly explained in the impugned judgment.

5. Be that as it may, the afore-stated fact and some other facts ought to have been discussed in detail. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the cases to the High Court so that they may be reconsidered by the High Cour