Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer / General Manager vs Sagrambhai Ghudabhai Suthar on 25 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2441 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2442 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2443 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2444 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2445 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2446 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2447 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2450 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2451 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2452 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2453 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2454 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2455 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2456 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2457 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2458 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2459 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2460 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2461 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2462 of 2017
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2463 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2464 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2465 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2466 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2467 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2468 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2469 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2471 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2472 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2473 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2474 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2475 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2476 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2477 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2478 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2479 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2480 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2481 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2483 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2484 of 2017
With
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2485 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2486 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2487 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2488 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2489 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2490 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2491 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2492 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 81 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2441 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 82 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2443 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 83 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2446 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 84 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2447 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 85 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 86 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2450 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 87 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2451 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 88 of 2017
Page 3 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2452 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 89 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2453 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 90 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2454 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 91 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2461 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 92 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2460 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 93 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2459 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 94 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2458 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 95 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2457 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 96 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2456 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 97 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2474 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 98 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2473 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 99 of 2017
In
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2471 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 101 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2470 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 102 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2467 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 103 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2466 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 104 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2465 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 105 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2464 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 106 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2463 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 107 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2484 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 108 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 109 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2479 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 110 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2480 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 111 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2478 of 2017
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 112 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2490 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 113 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2492 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 114 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2488 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 115 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2487 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 116 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2486 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 117 of 2017
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2485 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER / GENERAL MANAGER,
Versus
SAGRAMBHAI GHUDABHAI SUTHAR & ANR.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRISHNA RAVAL for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP, for Respondent-State
First Appeal Nos.2441 of 2017 to 2445 of 2017, 2451 of 2017 to
2455 of 2017, 2461 of 2017 to 2465 of 2017, 2471 of 2017 to 2475
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
of 2017, 2481 of 2017 to 2485 of 2017, 2491 of 2017 and 2492 of
2017,
Cross Objection Nos. 81 of 2017 to 83 of 2017, 84 of 2017 to 88 of
2017
MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP, for Respondent-State
First Appeal Nos. 2446 of 2017 to 2450 of 2017, 2456 of 2017 to
2460 of 2017, 2466 of 2017 to 2470 of 2017, 2486 of 2017 to 2490
of 2017
Cross Objection Nos.94 of 2017 to 98 of 2017, 105 of 2017 to
109 of 2017,
MS. SWEETY SAMARA, AGP, for Respondent-State
First Appeal Nos.2476 of 2017 to 2480 of 2017
Cross Objection Nos.89 of 2017 to 93 of 2017, 99 of 2017, 101 of
2017 to 104 of 2017, 110 of 2017 to 114 of 2017, 115 of 2017 to
117 of 2017
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 25/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This is a group of First Appeal is preferred by the Indian Railways being the acquiring body which has acquired various parcels of lands under the Land Acquisition Act and the proceedings initiated at the behest of appellant by respondent No.2-State of Gujarat.
2. The parcels of lands acquired fall within village Kansa, Taluka and District Patan for the public purpose of construction of Patan-Bhildi new broad gauge railway line.
Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 03.03.2009 in Gazette and on 24.03.2009/21.03.2009 published in two daily newspapers at a conspicuous place in the village and final notification came to be published on 18.04.2009. Section 6 notification published on 29.09.2009, the hearing under Section 9 was scheduled on 16.04.2010, the award under Section 11 was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 04.11.2011.
4. Against the claim of the land holders for Rs.1,000/- per Sq.Mtr, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of the land only at the rate of Rs.12/ - per Sq.Mtr of the land and Rs.13/- per Sq.Mtr for the land having access to the village pathway (Neliya).
5. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed the reference within the prescribed time contending inter alia that the assessed valuation of land is much on the lower side and considering various parameters like crop yield due to irrigation facility and other amenities available to the village claimed value of the land at Rs.1,000/- per Sq.Mtr against which the reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.216/- per Sq.Mtr.
6. Aggrieved by the compensation thus awarded by the Reference Court, the railways have preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act which Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2017 on the same day in a order below the Civil Application for stay, this Court directed stay of the impugned order on condition of deposit of entire awarded amount and permitted 50% withdrawal by the claimant and 50% to be deposited in Fixed Deposit of Nationalized Bank.
7. The claimants were also aggrieved by the award and hence filed Cross Objections on various grounds preliminary though on the ground of report of the District Valuation Committee. This Court vide order dated 23.11.2017 admitted the Cross Objections and ordered it to be heard with main appeals.
8. Considering the commanality of the issues involved and contentions raised in all other appeals, the same are taken up for joint final hearing and facts are narrated from the lead appeal being First Appeal No.2441 of 2017 with Cross Objection No.81 of 2017.
9. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan was pleased to partly allowed the Reference being L.A.R. No.80 of 2012 to 130 of 2012 and L.A.R. No.72 of 2012 (main Reference) and awarded (1) amount of Rs.216/- per sq. mtr. as additional amount of compensation to all the claimants of L.A.R. No.80 of 2012 to 130 of 2012 and L.A.R. No.72 of 2012 and (2) also awarded additional amount of solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired land as provided u/s.23(2) of the Act for the compulsory acquisition of land and (3) also Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined awarded 12% p.a. on the market value of the acquired land for the period commencing from the date of publication of Notification u/s.4(1) of the Act to the date of the award passed by the Collector or the date of the taking of possession of the land, whichever is earlier as provided in sec.23(1A) of the Act and (4) also awarded interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and thereafter, interest awarded at the rate 15% on the additional amount of compensation as awarded u/s.28 of the Act till the amount of entire compensation, cost, charges and expenses are being paid to the claimants and (5) also awarded cost to the claimants and cost of the opponents to be borne by themselves and directed to draw the calculation sheet and to draw decree accordingly.
10. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that reliance was placed by the Ld. Reference Court in the resolution/report of District Evaluation Committee dated 14.12.2005 below Exh.14. Such estimation or market price or evaluation of market price of the land as fixed by the Collector under District Evaluation Committee cannot become the sole guiding factor to determine the additional amount of compensation to the claimant. This situation or documentary evidence is not supported by any statutory provisions of law. Such document is clearly outside the purview of Section 23 of the Act and therefore, entire foundation of grant of additional amount of compensation to the claimant of this reference placing reliance on the Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined documentary evidence below Exh.14 produced by the claimant, is contrary to the entire scheme of Section 23 of the Act.
11. It is further submitted that Reference Court ought to have made deduction from the same keeping in view size of plot allotted by Government, land under acquisition, nature of use, locality, other factors like; agricultural use, non- agricultural use and others relevant factors and therefore, to that extent, there have to be reduction from such market price fixed by the District Valuation Committee. Therefore, the Ld. Reference Court committed grave error.
12. On behalf of the claimants and opponents, the Cross Objections are filed. Learned advocate submitted that the market value assessed by the valuation committee dated 14.12.2005 produced at Exh.14, wherein valuation committee determined the market value of the Gamtal land at the rate of Rs.325/- Sq. Mtr. However, though having accepted the said market value, the Reference Court has committed error in considering the basic market value at Rs.280/- instead of Rs.325/-. It is submitted that learned Judge has rightly deducted 30% in view of judgment of this High Court, however, gravely erred in deducting 30% from the basic value of Rs.280/- instead of Rs.325/-, which is the market value determined by the Valuation Committee. It is submitted that learned Judge is not justified in considering the basic value of Rs.280/- as the value has already been determined by the Valuation Committee at the rate of Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr.
13. The issue that comes up for consideration before this Court is the valuation arrived at by the District Valuation Committee, when parcel of land was acquired for the purpose of school in the very village. The decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State v/s. Amaji Mohnaji Thakore, reported in, 2010 (3) GLH 447 holds that the instances of valuation by the District Valuation Committee can be an appropriate guideline for deciding the price of the land.
14. Before the Reference Court, Exh. 14 is the valuation report which the Reference Court had taken into consideration in arriving at a price of Rs.216/-. In doing so, reasoning was adopted that if the market price is determined relying upon Exh. 14, the Evaluation Committee held a meeting on 14.12.2005 and decided to consider the market price as Rs. 325/- per square meter for 4047 Sq.m. land of Survey No.613 paiki located in the north of Kansa gaamtal for Primary School No.2. The lands in this case are also of Kansa village. Further, the final notification for acquisition under section 4 has been published on 18.04.2009. Thus, if the period between these two is considered, it is only around 3 years and 4 months. Therefore, if the Evaluation Committee orders compensation in this case based on the market value determined, then a just value can be arrived at.
Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined
15. The Evaluation Committee determined the rate of Rs.280/- per sq.m. for the land of Kansa village and after considering the location, frontage and assessment of the said land, it determined the rate as Rs.325/- per sq.m., considering the price rise of 15%. However, there is no evidence showing that the land acquired in this case has the location and frontage similar to the land allotted for the Primary School. Therefore, it determined Rs.280/- as the basic price. Further, upon considering the proceedings note of the Evaluation Committee at Exh.14, it becomes clear that the acquired land has been allotted for the primary school, i.e. for non-agricultural purpose. Moreover, High Court has held in case of Amaji Mohnaji Thakore (supra) that the land given by the Evaluation Committee is considered as the non-agricultural land and therefore, for the acquired land, 30% price has been reduced from its price. As per this principle, considering 30% price decrease in the price of Rs.280/-, Rs.84/- per sq.m. is required to be deducted. Thus, the basic price can be considered as Rs.196/-. Further, considering the price of the land determined by the Evaluation Committee at Exh. 14, it becomes clear that the said land is located nearby in the north of the Gaamtal. Whereas there is no evidence that the acquired land is located nearby the Gaamtal and amidst the human population. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary to decrease 10% price under that head. Thus, decreasing 10% of 196/- accordingly, and deducting the round figure of 20/-, the basic price arrived was Rs.176/- Sq Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined Mrt..
16. In the opinion of the Court, an error has crept in appreciation of District Valuation Committee' s report at Exh.14, where in para-2 valuation of a parcel of land of village Kansa was taken into consideration. The price arrived by the District Valuation Committee was Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr however, while doing so, four sale instances of adjoining lands were taken into consideration giving an escalation of 10% increase, at the same time considering the smallness of the plot and its shape, deduction of 30% was applied and upon deduction of such 30%, the amount arrived at being Rs.280/- to which 15% was added on account of the land in question having location of frontage to village road, thereby arriving at a price of Rs.322/- per Sq.Mtr.
16.1 In the opinion of the Court, the base price arrived at by the District Valuation Committee to the tune of Rs.325/- per Sq.Mtr was with deduction of 30% on the ground of smallness of the plot which deduction of 30% would not be applicable to the present parcels of land as the lands to be acquired is large parcel of land. However, such 30% deduction would be applicable considering the land to be an agricultural land and therefore, against the base price of Rs.325/-, deduction of 30% is applied which comes up to Rs.227.50/ (Rs.325/- minus Rs.97.5/- deduction), which would be price as on December 2005. Section 4 notification in the present acquisition is of April 2009 and therefore, an Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined escalation at the rate of 10% of the market value will have to be added and accordingly, Rs.227.50/- plus Rs.75.89/- (escalation at the rate of 10% for a period of three years and four months) will amount to Rs.303.30/-, rounded upto Rs.303/- per Sq.Mtr, which is in tabular form as under:-
Sr.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1. Base Price 325/-
2. 30% Deduction 227.5/-
(Rs325-97.5/-)(30%)
3. Escalation at the rate of 10% 22.75
(227.5x10%)
4. Considering the period of three 68.25
years (22.75x 3)
5. Considering the period of four 7.58
months (22.7/4 months)
Total 227.5+68.25+7.58=
303.33
Rounded upto 303/-
17. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the ends of justice will be met with if the price of the land is assessed at Rs.303/- per Sq.Mtr.
18. The impugned judgment and award is therefore, interfered with only to the extent of assessing the valuation of the land and enhancing the same to Rs.303/- as against Rs.216/-, valuation arrived at by the Reference Court. The remaining part of the award/operative part is hereby confirmed.
19. While considering the appeal, anomaly is brought to the notice of the Court, wherein in the schedule drawn as Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2441/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined per the award of the Reference Court, in column No.5 which has title of additional price rupees per Sq.Mtr, wherein the figure of Rs.216/- is reflected however, the Reference Court has treated the price of the land per Sq.Mtr to be Rs.216/- and therefore, figure mentioned in column No.5 is not an additional price, but total price of the land which would include the amount paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has paid the compensation by considering the value of the land to be Rs.12 per Sq.Mtr and Rs.13/- per Sq.Mtr and therefore, in the schedule in column No.5, figure which ought to have been reflected is Rs.203/- and Rs.204/- for the land having access to the village pathway (Neliya). However, now the schedule will have to be brought in conformity with the present order.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the award is required to be interfered to the aforesaid extent only. Hence, it is directed that schedule particularly column 5 be amended accordingly.
21. In view of the aforesaid, the Cross objections are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appeals are hereby dismissed.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (J. L. ODEDRA, J) SIDDHARTH Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 04:39:31 IST 2025