any error in passing the impugned order. 12 We take notice of the fact that the Single Judge of the High Court thought fit to reject the writ petition only on the ground of delay and in appeal, the appellate court disposed of the appeal asking the appellant herein to file an application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the amount of compensation. 13 We take notice of two things: First, the High Court in its impugned order has stated that the appellant herein has been informed about the value of the 4CA 6351/2024 land assessed at Rs 4,68,099. We fail to understand on what basis this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this amount came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such amount. Secondly, the order of the High Court could be said to be a non-speaking order. Although at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that it was an order obtained with the consent of the parties, yet there is nothing to