JUDGMENT : The present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 5th May, 1989, passed in Land Acquisition Case nos. 27, 28 and 29 of 1979. 2. In course of the argument, learned counsel has submitted that the court below has neither discussed the evidence adduced by the parties nor recorded any finding while up-holding the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. It is argued that it would be evident from the record that the award was prepared jointly in the name of the parties. That the appellants had filed their objections under Section 30 C.P.C., whereafter the matter was referred for adjudication before the Subordinate Judge for adjudication of the entitlement and the rightful claimant of the award. That the document and oral evidence were adduced but the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, did not formulate issues or points for determination and judgment has been passed by a cryptic and non-speaking order which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-State is in attendance. The respondents have appeared by filing their Vakalatnama. 5. Heard. On perusal of the judgment, it is explicitly clear that despite the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the court below, has neither formulated the points for determination as to whether the appellant/party was entitled to the award or not and without discussing the merits of the case has held as follows:- “ I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of 3 sets of the purchasers and I find that the objectors have raised objection against the award prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer for objection sake only. I further find that the Awards prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper. With this observation the three L.A. Reference cases are disposed of accordingly.” 6. It is manifest that the trial court has not taken any pains to discuss the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties, as available on record, and without recording its satisfaction that the evidence of the objector were frivolous, has passed a non-speaking order holding that the objection has been raised only for objection sake only, without assigning any cogent reasons for the same while upholding the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. From the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the trial court for passing a reasoned and speaking order. The court below shall after noticing the parties in the aforementioned Land Acquisition Case nos. 27 of 1979, 28 of 1979 and 29 of 1079 and after giving them an opportunity of hearing shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Since the matters are nearly three decades old and the evidences are on record, the trial court shall dispose of the cases within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties except on compelling grounds. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the cases. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the judgment and award passed by learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, dated 5th May, 1989, in Land Acquisition Case nos. 27, 28 and 29 of 1979 are hereby set aside. 8. The appeals are hereby allowed to the extent as noted above. 9. Office is directed to send the Lower Court Records forthwith to the court below.