JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants. None has appeared on behalf of respondent though called in revised and name of Sri R.P.S. Yadav appearing on behalf of respondent has been shown. Hence, we proceed to hear and decide ex parte. 2. This is defendants appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Act 1894') arising from judgment and award dated 8.11.2002 and decree dated 16.11.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar, adjudicating six Land Acquisition References (hereinafter referred to as ‘’LARs’) including LAR No. 76 of 1998 (Ishwari Prasad v. State of U.P.and others) determining market value of acquired land in a reference made under Section 18 of Act 1894, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. Besides, claimant respondents have also been held entitled for 30 percent solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation, 12 percent per annum additional compensation; interest as 9 percent per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15 percent till the date of payment. 3. Department of Public Works required certain land for construction of a road namely Awantika Devi Marg in Village-Mohamadpur Bazar, Pargana Ahar, District Bulandshahar and for that purpose State of U.P. proceeded to acquire land under the provisions of Act 1894, forcibly, by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) on 18.7.1986 and under Section 6 (1) on 12.7.1986. Possession of acquired land was taken on 5.11.1986. 4. The disputed area of acquired land of claimant-respondent is Khata No. 67, Khet No. 84 (00-00-3) and 151 area (00-19-00). Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’) vide award dated 12.12.2002 determined compensation on the basis of nature of soil and offered Rs. 19886/- per bigha for land Khaki and Rs. 10420/- per bigha for Jungle Doyam Kheti. 5. Claimant-respondent and others being dissatisfied with determination of compensation by SLAO, made application under Section 18 for reference to District Judge, Bulandshahar for determining appropriate market value, of acquired land, and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. yard. Pursuant thereto Reference Court has adjudicated all six LARs including LAR No. 76 of 1988, determining market value at Rs. 200/- per sq. 300/- per sq. yard. Pursuant thereto Reference Court has adjudicated all six LARs including LAR No. 76 of 1988, determining market value at Rs. 200/- per sq. yard relying on an earlier award in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987 wherein compensation was paid at Rs. 200/- per sq. yard to Rs. 390/- per sq. yard. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the acquired land situated in Village-Mohammandpur Bejar while land which was subject-matter of awards in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987 was situated in Villages-Deokaran, Bajhera, Sunhera, Chandpur, Chiti and Achheja Nagar. He further submitted that Reference Court has not examined evidence as also facts as to whether acquired land in question was similarly situated with land which was subject-matter of adjudication in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987 and by a wholly unreasoned, non speaking order, after noticing contentions of both parties, has simply followed awards in the aforesaid LARs and determined market value at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. 7. We find that Reference Court has formulated issues in para 6 of the award. In para 7 it has referred to the evidence brought on record by parties. In paras 8 and 9 it has answered Issue-2 and thereafter has proceeded to consider Issue 1 with respect to determination of market value of acquired land in para 10 and onwards. In para 10 it has referred to the controversy between parties, in para 11 it has referred to evidence adduced by claimants which comprised of oral evidence of Deewan Singh, PW-1 and Bhoop Singh, PW-2 and documentary evidence comprising only awards/judgment in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987. In para 12, contention of claimants are noted and therein it has also stated that dispute of compensation with respect to land acquired in Villages-Deokaran, Bajhera, Sunhera, Chandpur, Chiti and Achheja Nagar was subject-matter of LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987. In para 13 of award, it has referred to contentions advanced on behalf of opposite party. In para 13 of award, it has referred to contentions advanced on behalf of opposite party. Then in para 14 it has observed that acquired land is irrigated, yielding three crops in a year, has got potential value of residential and commercial buildings and law laid down in the judgments referred to in subsequent paragraphs is applicable. In paras 15, 16, 17 and 18 it has referred to certain judgments laying down principles for determination of market value. In paras 19 and 20 it has referred to submissions of claimants claiming compensation at par with awards in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987. In paras 19 and 20 it has referred to authorities cited in support of above submissions made therein. Then in para 21 Reference Court has simply said as under : “After having considered the entire material available on record and the citations preferred by the parties, I am of the opinion that claimants of the above reference, have not been given adequate compensation and they deserve to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard as already given by my learned predecessors in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987 which is the minimum one. This Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.” 8. In the entire award we did not find any discussion, how Reference Court found that the land in question, in all respect, was similarly situated with the land, subject-matter of reference in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987, and compensation awarded therein would apply in the present case also. 9. It is evident that acquired land is situated in different villages. Details of acquisition and other relevant factors are not available on record. However, from a bare perusal of impugned award, it is evident that Reference Court has failed to discharge its duty of making award by recording findings on relevant aspects, necessary for determination of market value. In a very cryptic manner, aforesaid award has been passed. 10. Order XX Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) states that a judgment of Court shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. In a very cryptic manner, aforesaid award has been passed. 10. Order XX Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) states that a judgment of Court shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. It has been repeatedly held that, a decision, if given, but reasons for decision are not given, judgment would be unsustainable. 11. Further Rule 5 Order XX, CPC states, when issues have been framed, Court shall state its findings or decision, with reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless findings upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. 12. Reference Court formulated two issues which reads as under : “(i) Whether the claimants have been awarded, adequate compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer? If not what compensation should actually be awarded? (ii) Is the claim barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence in view of the fact that the amount of compensation awarded has already been received by the claimants? 13. We are mainly concerned to Issue 1. It has been discussed from para 10 to 21 of award. As already observed, para 10 refers the question as what should be the amount of compensation. Para 11 refers to oral evidence adduced by both parties stating that claimants examined PW-1 Diwan Singh and PW-2 Bhoop Singh while defendants State of U.P. examined DW-1 Karan Singh, Amin, with respect to documentary evidence it states that claimants filed certified copy of judgment/award in LARs No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987. Para 12 refers to contentions advanced on behalf of claimant land owners and in para 13, contentions advanced on behalf of defendants are averred. Then in para 14 it is stated that acquired land is irrigated and yielding three crops per year and has potential value of residential and commercial buildings, therefore law laid down in the case discussed subsequently are applicable and these cases are referred to in paras 15 and 16. Again in para 17 certain authorities cited by claimants are mentioned and in para 18, case law cited by defendants is mentioned. Again in para 17 certain authorities cited by claimants are mentioned and in para 18, case law cited by defendants is mentioned. In paras 19 and 20 claimants contention upon judgment/award in LAR No. 1 of 1994, 266 of 1992 and 194 of 1987 are referred and their contention is noticed that same compensation should be allowed to the claimants. Thereafter, in para 21 conclusion drawn by Reference Court has been noticed. 14. Therefore, discussion of all paras on Issue 1 though it covers 12 paragraphs in all, but whatsoever findings, conclusions etc. we find is only in para 21 which we have noted above. We find no hesitation in holding that the manner in which Reference Court has dealt with the matter is nothing but a judgment as it ought to have been written, prepared and delivered by a Court of Law, particularly when specific provisions are also made in Order XX Rule 4 and 5 clearly stating that for a decision, reasons must be given; 15. In Cellular Operators Association of India and others v. Union of India and others; (2003) 3 SCC 186 , concurring delivered by Hon’ble S.B. Sinha, J, it was said in para 22 that a judgment of Court or a Tribunal should contain concise statement of case, points of decisions, the reasons for such decisions and decisions thereupon. 16. In Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396 , referring to Order XX Rule 4 (2) Code of Civil Procedure, Court said that a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. Court also said that process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. 17. In Union of India v. Manager, Jain and Associates, (2001) 3 SCC 277 , it was observed that the judgment would itself indicate judicial determination by reasoned order for arriving at the conclusion that decree in terms of award be passed. Referring the meaning of word ‘’judgment’ in Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn.,Vol. I (1984) Court said that meaning is “the result of judging; the decision or conclusion reached, as after consideration or deliberation.” 18. Referring the meaning of word ‘’judgment’ in Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn.,Vol. I (1984) Court said that meaning is “the result of judging; the decision or conclusion reached, as after consideration or deliberation.” 18. In State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 547 , the well established dictum, discussion, reason and conclusion was reiterated and Court said that reasons brings clarity in an order. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise power of judicial review in adjudging validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court must be given. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 19. Dealing with a land acquisition matter (in appeal by High Court) Supreme Court in Navanath and others v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 14 SCC 480 , has said, “ A Court of law must base its decision on appreciation of evidence brought on record by applying the correct legal principles. Surmises and conjectures alone cannot form the basis of a judgment.” 20. Time and again it has been held that “reasons” and “conclusions” are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 21. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836 , as under: “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.” 22. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.” 22. Referring to the above case law, Apex Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Panjab and others, (1979) 2 SCC 368 , in para 18 said: “We may also indicate, since the High Court saw the file and discovered that the appellant was not brought on the Select List because he was “not found suitable otherwise”, that regulation 5 which deals with the preparation of a list of suitable officers provides by Clause 7 that “if in the process of selection, review or revision it is proposed to supersede any member of the State Civil Service, the Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession”. While dealing with an identical provision in Clause 5 of regulation 5 of the same Regulations as they stood then, this Court observed in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, (1973)2 SCC 836 , that “rubber-stamp” reasons given for the supersession of each officer to the effect that the record of the officer concerned was not such as to justify his appointment “at this stage in preference to those selected”, do not amount to “reasons for the proposed supersession” within the meaning of Clause 5. “Reasons”, according to Beg J. (with whom Mathew J. concurred) “are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions”. The Court accordingly held that the mandatory provisions of regulation 5(5) were not complied with by the Selection Committee. That an officer was “not found suitable” is the conclusion and not a reason in support of the decision to supersede him. True, that it is not expected that the Selection Committee should give anything approaching the judgment of a Court, but it must at least state, as briefly as it may, why it came to the conclusion that the officer concerned was found to be not suitable for inclusion in the Select List. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another “reason” for not bringing the appellant on the Select List.” 23. In the absence of any such reason, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the Selection Committee had another “reason” for not bringing the appellant on the Select List.” 23. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1981 SC 1915 , said: “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable” 24. In Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others, (2006) 11 SCC 181 , Apex Court referring to Bachawat’s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said: “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions...” 25. Recently the Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said: “Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two.” 26. The Apex Court recently also in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another, JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said: “Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision.” 27. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of judge- made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision.” 27. In the present case, with respect to issue 1, which was the real substantial issue regarding determination of market value, Court below has referred to various contentions, evidence and provisions, awards relied by parties but there is no reason as to how its finding are applicable to the case in issue and on this aspect virtually there is no finding. We are satisfied with the award in question and cannot be said to be in compliance to the requirements recording all reasons by Court in the judgment as discussed above. 28. The only discussion, findings, conclusions whatsoever of Court below is contained in para 21 which we have reproduced in its entirety but at no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that it contains reasons or decisions given by Court below except blindly following the award in other references where acquired land was in different villages then what was under consideration before Reference Court in the present matter. 29. Before parting, we find it appropriate to place on record our great dissatisfaction with respect to manner in which award has been written by a Member of Higher Judicial Service and we have no hesitation in observing that his capability of writing judgment needs to be examined. 29. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The impugned award insofar as it relates to LAR No. 76 of 1988 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded to Reference Court to adjudicate said LAR afresh and determine market value in accordance with law, expeditiously. 30. The Registrar General is also directed to communicate this judgment to learned Presiding Officer who passed the impugned award, wherever he is posted and the matter shall also be placed before concerned Administrative Judge.