ORDER : V. Ramasubramanian, J. Not satisfied with the extent to which their appeals for enhancement of compensation under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were allowed, the land owners have come up with the present review applications contending that there were a few errors apparent on the face of the record requiring a review of the judgment. 2. Heard Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.A. Narasimham, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. 3. By a Notification dated 02-6-1995/18-6-1995, certain lands in Penna Peruru Village in Vontimitta Mandal, totalling to an extent of about Ac.134.67 cents were acquired for the public purpose of foreshore water of Somasila project. The lands were divided into 5 reaches, namely (i) registered wet lands under tanks and registered irrigable dry lands under tanks, (ii) dry lands irrigable under private wells, (iii) purely rain fed dry lands under cultivation without irrigation facilities, (iv) dry lands without cultivation and (v) uncultivable waste lands. 4. A series of awards were passed under Award Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 1997-98. The Referring Officer collected 25 comparable sale transactions that took place within 3 years preceding the date of Notification. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) fixed the compensation at different rates for different reaches of lands. 5. There were also structures and trees. While the structures were assessed by the Irrigation and Power Department officials, the trees were assessed by the Assistant Director of Horticulture. 6. Not satisfied with the market value fixed by the LAO, references were sought. These references in LAOP Nos.218, 219, 220, 221 and 222 of 2000 were disposed of by an order dated 26-02-2002. The judgment of the reference Court dated 26-02-2002 became the subject matter of a batch of appeals in A.S.Nos.1267, 1296, 1697, 1779 and 2221 of 2002. All the appeals were allowed by a Bench of this Court by a common judgment and the cases were remanded back to the reference Court. The Supreme Court confirmed the same with a direction to the reference Court to permit the land owners to let in evidence. 7. Thereafter, the reference Court took up LAOP Nos.218 to 222 of 2000 for fresh disposal. The Referring Officer was examined as P.W.1, who filed all the 5 Awards as Exs.A-1 to A-5. The Supreme Court confirmed the same with a direction to the reference Court to permit the land owners to let in evidence. 7. Thereafter, the reference Court took up LAOP Nos.218 to 222 of 2000 for fresh disposal. The Referring Officer was examined as P.W.1, who filed all the 5 Awards as Exs.A-1 to A-5. The claimants examined themselves as R.Ws.1 to 19 and filed 48 documents. 8. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the reference Court again passed a fresh judgment on 05-11-2009. Insofar as the valuation of the land is concerned, the parties did not have any serious dispute. But the real dispute was with reference to the valuation of the trees. The reference Court accepted the number of trees as determined by the LAO and merely altered the compensation payable per tree, on the basis of a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 22-3-2006. 9. Aggrieved by the method of valuation adopted by the reference Court in respect of the trees, the claimants filed a batch of appeals in LAAS Nos.53, 132, 175 and 219 of 2010. These appeals were allowed in part by a Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 06-11-2013, enhancing the market value of land to Rs.30,000/- per acre. Since the scope of the dispute is not primarily related to the value of the land, the same is taken note of only for the purpose of completion of narration. 10. Insofar as the trees are concerned, this Court, in para-39 of its judgment dated 06-11-2013, made it clear that they were not disturbing the number of trees taken into account by the reference Court, in view of the decision rendered in another batch of cases in A.S.No.1749 of 2014 batch. 11. After fixing the number of trees, as recorded by the reference Court, this Court determined the value of pomegranate trees at Rs.2,000/- per tree and the value of sweet orange trees at Rs.4,000/- per tree, on the basis of a judgment dated 01-3-2013 passed in A.S.No.1749 of 2004. 12. Contending that this Court committed an error in fixing the number of trees as well as the valuation of the trees and that such an error is an error apparent on the face of the record, the claimants have come up with the above review applications. 13. The grievances of the petitioners, as projected by Mr. 12. Contending that this Court committed an error in fixing the number of trees as well as the valuation of the trees and that such an error is an error apparent on the face of the record, the claimants have come up with the above review applications. 13. The grievances of the petitioners, as projected by Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, are : (i) that though the claimants disputed the number of trees taken into account by the reference Court and though the dispute raised by the claimants in this regard was also taken note of by the Bench in para-28 of its judgment, there was no discussion with regard to the same; (ii) that the Bench failed to appreciate the fact that the reference Court took note of a Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.357, dated 22-3-2006, issued long after the issue of the Notification under Section 4(1) on 18-6-1995, despite the fact that for fixation of the number of trees, the Court was obliged to take note of NABARD guidelines marked as Ex.B-48 and (iii) that the enhancement granted to the structures at 80% was omitted to be taken note of by this Court. 14. In response to the above, it is contended by Mr. K.A. Narasimham, learned Assistant Government Pleader, that if a particular argument is taken note of by a Bench and a particular conclusion is reached, the same would tantamount to a rejection of the said argument; that none of the grounds raised by the petitioners satisfy the parameters of Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC; that as against the judgment under review, the petitioners preferred special leave petitions in SLP (Civil) No.24533/2014 and an LAO also preferred SLP (Civil) N.27944/2014, but all these SLPs were dismissed by an order dated 15-9-2014. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the review applications are liable to be dismissed. 15. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 16. Insofar as the first ground of review is concerned, it is true that in para-28 of its judgment, the Bench of this Court recorded the dispute with regard to the number of trees. In the same paragraph, the Bench also took note of Ex.B-48 NABARD guidelines, indicating the number of trees that could be grown. 16. Insofar as the first ground of review is concerned, it is true that in para-28 of its judgment, the Bench of this Court recorded the dispute with regard to the number of trees. In the same paragraph, the Bench also took note of Ex.B-48 NABARD guidelines, indicating the number of trees that could be grown. Again in para-32 of the judgment, the Bench of this Court recorded the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the LAO and reference Court wrongly omitted to take note of most of the trees into consideration though the Notification under Section 4(1) reflected the same. 17. But in para-39 of the judgment, the Bench recorded a conclusion that they were arriving at the value of the trees without disturbing the number of trees taken into account by the reference Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners with regard to the number of trees clearly stand rejected by the conclusion reached in para-39 of the judgment. As against such a conclusion, no review is possible, since the absence of reasoning cannot be taken to be an error apparent on the face of the record, curable on a review. The absence of reasons for a finding may be a good ground for an appeal. But the petitioners have exhausted even the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the first ground of review does not fall within the parameters of review. 18. The second ground revolves around the action of the reference Court in not going by Ex.B-48, NABARD guidelines but by taking into account G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 22-3-2006, issued long after the Notification. 19. But it appears from the judgment of the reference Court that both Ex.B-48 as well as G.O.Ms.No.357 provided only the guidelines for determining the number of trees that could be planted and yield recovered. Both are based upon some hypothesis. The exact number of trees should actually be proved by concrete evidence. If claimants rely upon one hypothesis, the LAO can rely upon another hypothesis. The number of trees that could be grown in a land may vary to a small extent, if at all they vary, after a gap of 10 years. Both are based upon some hypothesis. The exact number of trees should actually be proved by concrete evidence. If claimants rely upon one hypothesis, the LAO can rely upon another hypothesis. The number of trees that could be grown in a land may vary to a small extent, if at all they vary, after a gap of 10 years. The number of trees that could have been grown in the year 1995 (at the time of Notification) could not have undergone a change in the year 2006 when G.O.Ms.No.357 was issued, unless some natural calamity had changed the nature and complexion of the soil. 20. In any case, a preference given to one hypothesis over another cannot be a ground for review. 21. The third ground of review revolving around the structures also, does not merit acceptance. An argument revolving around the same was taken note of by the Division Bench towards the end of para-32 of the judgment. Therefore, the same should be taken to have been rejected by the Bench. 22. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the grounds on which a review is maintainable are clearly spelt out by the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, AIR 2013 SC 3301 . 23. The cases on hand do not fall within any of the 9 principles enunciated in para-16 of the decision in Kamlesh Verma. Therefore, the review applications are devoid of merits. Hence, they are dismissed.