ORDER : B.P. Singh, J. - We have heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted. The grievance of the appellant before us is that the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a compensation of only Rs. 10 per square foot against which a reference was claimed by the appellant. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs 10 per square foot to Rs. 27.50 per square foot. The appellant was still not satisfied and, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been disposed of by the impugned order. 2. The High Court while considering the appeal preferred by the appellant framed the following four questions for its consideration: 'I. Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10 per square foot to Rs. 27.50 per square foot for the acquired land? II. Whether the Reference Court, in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the claim, could have enhanced the compensation that was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer? III. Whether the Reference Court was justified in calculating the compensation payable on square foot basis? IV. What order?' Ultimately the High Court concluded that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court was itself not justified and, therefore, set aside the award of the Reference Court. It also dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation. 3. At the outset we may observe that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 7-11-2000 was not challenged by the State. If at all it was the appellant who was aggrieved by the said award contending that the compensation awarded was not sufficient. In the appeal preferred by the appellant therefore there was no question of reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 4. The High Court, if it was satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was sufficient, could have dismissed the appeal, but there was certainly no justification for it to reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant by setting aside the award of the Reference Court when the same was not challenged by the State. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order setting aside the award passed by the Reference Court. 5. The next question is whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement in compensation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order setting aside the award passed by the Reference Court. 5. The next question is whether the appellant is entitled to any enhancement in compensation. This matter has not been really considered in its proper perspective and the High Court did not even frame a question to consider whether the appellant was justified in claiming a higher compensation. We are, therefore, of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court impugned in this appeal and remit the matter to the High Court to consider the appeal of the appellant claiming higher compensation. We order accordingly. 6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to the costs. Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8575 of 2006