JUDGMENT : Kurian Joseph, J. Applications for intervention are rejected. 2. These appeals are filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the High Court to enhance the compensation in respect of their lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in these cases was issued in the year 1987. Looking at the nature of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer classified the land into eight categories. Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the following rates:- Sr. No. Type of Land Amount (in Rs. ) 1 Abi Land 40,000/- per acre 2 Barani Land 35,000/- per acre 3 Gair mumkin banjar qadim 15,000/- per acre 4 Gair mumkin village abadi 80,000/- per acre 3. Aggrieved, the appellants pursued the matter before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals and thus, the appellants are before this Court. 4. The sheet anchor of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that they had filed an application under 41, Rule 27 CPC producing the Awards/orders in the case of same nature of land acquired for the same purpose in the States of Jammu and Kashmir and Himanchal Pradesh. It is seen from the impugned Judgment that no separate orders are passed on those applications. 5. Be that as it may, there is a reference to the argument in this regard in the penultimate paragraph of the Judgment, which is extracted below :- "The contention of the learned counsel for the landowners that the landowners should be awarded same compensation, which has been awarded to the landowners of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh for their acquired land, is not sustainable, firstly because the price of the land situated in one State cannot be made basis for the determination of the compensation of the land situated in another State. Moreover, the circumstances under which the compensation was awarded to the landowners of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are not on the record. So in my opinion, it was not be safe to place reliance thereupon to assess compensation for the acquired land." 6. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be justified. Moreover, the circumstances under which the compensation was awarded to the landowners of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are not on the record. So in my opinion, it was not be safe to place reliance thereupon to assess compensation for the acquired land." 6. We are afraid, the stand taken by the High Court cannot be justified. Unless the Court passes an order on the reception or otherwise on the additional evidence, the Court cannot hold that there was no evidence available on the circumstances under which the compensation was awarded. 7. We do not propose to deal with the merits of the matters since we propose to remand the matters to the High Court for consideration afresh after passing orders on the applications filed by the appellants under 41, Rule 27 CPC. 8. Accordingly, the impugned Judgments are set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after passing orders on the applications filed by the appellants before the High Court under 41, Rule 27 CPC. 9. Being a Notification of 1987, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months. 10. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of. No costs.