K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The above review applications are filed to review the judgment dated 3. 2001 made in A.S.Nos.262 and 264 of 1997, which were filed against the judgment and decree of the Reference Court made in L.A.O.P.Nos.3 and 6 of 1993 dated 19. 1995.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants submitted that this Court has to review the order on the premise that while disposing of the appeals, the review petitioners were not properly represented though the petitioners were represented by counsel that there are errors apparent on the face of the orders in taking into consideration of Ex.A2 a document dated 18. 1986 as a document reflecting the real market value with reference to 4(1) Notification dated 6. 1989. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.4,176/- per cent has been considerably reduced to Rs.1,625/- per cent. The learned counsel has also advanced the argument as to the correctness of the finding arrived at by the Division Bench, which is in a way rearguing the appeals once again in spite of the fact that the judgment under review was rendered on merits of the case taking into conside