Gujarat High Court
Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ... vs Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4879 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 322 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4879 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4880 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 323 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4880 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4885 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 324 of 2023
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4885 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
RAJPUT DEVJIBHAI JETHABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. FORAM TRIVEDI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 28/04/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
1. Captioned group of appeals and the cross objections are
filed by the State and the claimants respectively against the
judgment and award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge,Deesa in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.23 of 2005 to Land Acquisition Reference
Case No. 25 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned
judgment") whereby the compensation has been enhanced to
Rs.339.30/- from Rs.2.70/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer as per the award under section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
1894").
2. Ms.Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned
judgment passed in the captioned proceedings, inasmuch as,
the learned Judge has committed serious error in awarding
the additional compensation on the higher side over and
above the compensation already awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that there is a
sheer non-application of mind on the part of the Court below,
considering the fact that the oral evidence of the Land
Acquisition Officer has not been properly considered despite
the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has given detailed
narratives and the basis as to how the market value has been
determined at Rs.2.70/- per sq. mts. It is submitted that when
there was readily available market value determined by the
Land Acquisition Officer, there was no reason available to the
Court below to have diverted from the market value
determined. It is further submitted that there was an error
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
committed by the learned judge in relying upon the District
Valuation Committee Report dated 20.05.2004 at Exh.36
wherein, for the government land of village Lakhani allotted
to BSNL, the market value determined was Rs.570/-. It is
submitted that without ascertaining further evidence, the
learned Judge has straightaway accepted it which, could not
have been considered for determining the market value at the
rate of Rs.570/- and then offering the deduction at the rate of
40%. It is thus urged that the appeal deserves consideration
and the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr.Jinesh Kapadia, learned Advocate
appearing with Mr.Mahesh Patel, learned Advocate for the
original claimants submitted that the additional compensation
determined by the learned Judge is in the right earnest. The
claimants are aggrieved by the deduction at 40%. It is further
submitted that it is not in dispute that the acquisition is
common i.e. for the public purpose of constructing Sujalam
Sufalam Spreading Canal. It is also not in dispute that the
distance between village Lakhani and village Ghela is hardly 2
kilometers. Considering the distance and the fact that the
acquisition is common, the learned Judge, ought to have
allowed the deduction at 20% instead of 40%.
3.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer,Poona & Anr. reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 wherein it
has been held and observed that it is not the function of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
Court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or
disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify
or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition
Officer, as if it were an appellate court. It is submitted that by
now it is well settled that the Court has to treat the reference
as an original proceeding before it and determine the market
value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
Therefore, there was sufficient material before the Court
below to come to the right conclusion of the additional market
value.
3.2 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Deputy
General Manager vs. Heirs of Decd. Ratanbhai Karsanbhai
and Ors. passed in First Appeal No. 1942 of 2003. Reliance is
further placed on the judgment in the case of Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji
Lumbaji passed in R/ First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 and other
allied matters. It is submitted that the said judgment applies
on all fours to the facts of the present case considering the
nature of acquisition, section 4 notification and the location of
the villages. So far as the deduction is concerned, the issue,
stand covered by the observations made in the judgment in
the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs.
Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji (supra). Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the division bench in the case of Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Dy. Collector) & Anr. Vs. Patel Kanjibhai
Ganeshbhai passed in R/First Appeal No. 2606 of 2016 and
other allied matters.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
3.3 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of
Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & Ors. vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat
& Anr. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 584 wherein it has been held
and observed that when the lands are similarly situated and if
the quality including the potentiality is similar then the
distance between the lands would not by itself lead to a
change in the respective market value. It is submitted that in
the case on hand, there is no evidence led by the State
Government distinguishing or dislodging the quality including
the potentiality of the land in question. In absence of any
evidence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has
committed an error in relying upon the report of the District
Valuation Committee, which committee, is comprised of the
experts namely Collector and other revenue authorities
appointed by the State Government. When there was a readily
available market value, it cannot be said that the judgment,
suffers from irregularity or illegality.
3.4 It is submitted that the learned Judge in the operative
portion has granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum on
the additional compensation for the first year; however, there
appears to be some mistake in indicating the interest for the
subsequent years at the rate of 12%. Though there is
reference of section 28, inadvertently, instead of 15% interest,
12% interest has been indicated. It is therefore urged that the
judgment may be suitably modified.
3.5 Reliance is also place on the judgment in the case of State
of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447
wherein reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in
(2009) 15 SCC 769 wherein, it has been held and observed
that one of the recognised methods for determination of
market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The
estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted
Expert Committee, as expert evidence can therefore form the
basis for determining the market value in land acquisition
cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. Relying upon the said
judgment, the Division Bench, has held and observed that the
Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the
field of valuation, including the District Collector etc. and
therefore, there is no reason as to why the valuation made by
the Valuation Committee of the Government for fixation of the
price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of
sale instances or price fixed by the Government for allotment
of a land to an organization should not be taken into
consideration. It is submitted that in the case on hand, there
was also readily available evidence, i.e. the minutes of the
meeting dated 20.05.2004 wherein, the market value of the
land of village Lakhani was determined at Rs.570/- for the
purpose of allotment of the plot in favour of BSNL and
therefore, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the said
market value has rightly been accepted by the learned Judge.
It is submitted that Court, has though accepted Rs.570/- but
allowed 40% deduction which, is incorrect. Infact, only 20%
deduction, ought to have been affected. Therefore, the correct
market value which would be derived would be Rs.456/- per
sq. mts. (Rs.570 - Rs.114(20% deduction)). It is therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
urged that same be treated as correct additional market
value.
4. Ms.Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
could not controvert the said proposition
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the documents made available on record,
so also the paper-book.
6. Pertinently, the land has been acquired for the public
purpose of constructing Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal.
Section 4 notification has been published on 30.06.2004 and
Land Acquisition Officer has given its award under section 11
of the Act of 1894 on 29.04.2004 and the market value
determined was at the rate of Rs.2.70/- per sq.mts. for
irrigated land. Being aggrieved, the claimants have
approached the Reference Court by filing Land Acquisition
Reference Case under the provisions of section 18 of the Act
of 1894 which, culminated into Land Acquisition Reference
Case No. 23 of 2005 to Land Acquisition Reference Case No.
25 of 2005 and vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017 the
additional compensation was determined at Rs.570/-. The
learned Judge has allowed 40% deduction and the net market
value determined was Rs.339.30/-. Direction has been given to
extend the statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Act
of 1894; however, there is direction of awarding 12% interest
instead of 15% interest as per the provisions of section 28.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
7. The captioned appeals and the cross objections are
against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017. It is not in
dispute and has been fairly accepted by the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties that the lands are
acquired for the public purpose of constructing Sujalam
Sufalam Spreading Canal of various villages including villages
Lakhani and Ghela. It is also not in dispute that the distacnce
between village Lakhani and village Ghela is approximately 2
kms. In the case of village Lakhani, the matter travelled upto
this Court and the Division Bench, after considering the
submissions made by the respective parties in Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji
Lumbaji (supra) has determined the market value at Rs.456/-
after allowing the necessary deduction. Paragraphs 14 to 18,
read thus:
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle
enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the
principles governing determination of market value of lands
acquired are well- settled and at the time of determination of
the compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain
directions as regard the the methods of valuation to be
considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid
within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase
or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those
acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number
of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective
profits of the lands acquired. Therefore valuation made by the
Valuation Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference
Court in deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of
awarding compensation, subject to any change in the nature
of the land, character etc. If the impugned judgment and order
of the Reference Court is examined in light of the aforesaid
observations and discussions, it appears to us that there is no
error committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the
price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose of
Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court
has committed error in not considering the aspect that the
valuation as was made of the land in question on 20.05.2004
and the said valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
principles, as observed herein above and the Reference Court
has also totally lost sight of in not considering the deduction to
be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural
purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present
case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out
that it is the case of the original claimants that the Valuation
Committee has fixed the valuation of the Government land on
20.05.2004, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the
Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the
valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and, hence,
they are entitled for additional compensation, for which,
reliance is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel
Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji
Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts have been
pointed out before the Reference Court, it has not been
considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20%,
which the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone
through the record and proceeding and found out that the
Reference Court has considered the report dated 20.05.2004
of the Valuation Committee. It is found out that the Reference
Court has correctly evaluated the the report of the Valuation
Committee but at the time of considering the amount, 40%
amount is deducted from the said amount mentioned in the
report solely on the count that in identical matter in case of
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First Appeal
Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court
has deducted 40% amount from the price fixed by the
competent authority. It is found out from the record that in the
said matter, the acquired land was situated in outskirt of the
city area, whereas the present land, which is acquired by the
acquiring body, is situated within the center of the city and as
per the evidence led by the original claimants, surrounding
and vicinity area of the acquired land is well developed area
and in future, the Government need not have to spend any
amount for the development of the said area, therefore, basic
price value of the said land is on higher side, therefore, the
deduction is required to be made 20% instead of 40%. We
have gone through the record and proceedings and found out
that the land, which was acquired by the acquiring body, is
small plot and situated within the center of the city, therefore,
we are of the opinion that the original claimants are entitled
for 20% deduction instead of 40% deduction.
16. We have considered the report of the District Valuation
Committee, village : Lakhani dated 20.05.2004 produced on
record at Exhs.40 & 41 i.e. as well as the Map of village
produced on record. It is found out from the aforesaid
documents that the price of the land of land bearing Survey
No.152 pk. has been evaluated and fixed at Rs.510/- per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
sq.mtr. And Sujalam Safalam Canal passes through land
bearing Survey Nos.153 & 211 pk. and the said lands are
situated adjacent to the land owned by the original claimants.
It is also found out from the record that the lands owned by
the original claimants are situated within well developed area,
which would reduce the expenditure behind the development
and, therefore after acquiring the said land, the Government
need not have to spend money for its development. Thus
considering the above facts of the case on hand, the original
claimants are entitled for deduction of 20% instead of 40%,
which has been done in the present case.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that we have also gone
through the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Reference Court including the finding given and
conclusion arrived at by the learned Reference Court and
found that except deduction of 40% instead of 20%, there is no
error committed by the learned Reference Court, which would
require interference from this Court. Hence, rest of the
impugned judgment and award remain unaltered.
18. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations made, First
Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are hereby dismissed.
Whereas Cross Objections filed by the original claimants are
allowed as prayed for. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.26 to 31 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent that
instead of compensation at Rs.333.50, which is already
awarded by the Reference Court, the original claimants are
entitled to get additional compensation at Rs.160/- per Sq.Mtr
i.e. total compensation at Rs.493.50. Rest of the observation
and direction would remain unaltered. Decree to be drawn
accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back forthwith."
8. The above-referred judgment on facts and law, applies on
all fours to the facts of the present case and hence, there is no
reason available for this Court to deviate from the reasoning
indicated in the above-referred judgment inasmuch as, it is
not in dispute, and as stated hereinabove the acquisition is
with respect to village Ghela which is village adjoining to
village Lakhani and therefore, there is no reason available to
this Court not to rely or refer to the judgment of the co-
ordinate bench. Besides, nothing contrary has been pointed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
out by the State dislodging the distance or potentiality of the
land in question. The issue of deduction, is also discussed and
considered in detail and therefore, allowing 40% deduction
was not correct. So far as the appreciation is concerned,
considering the difference of merely one month and eleven
days between the date of report of the valuation committee,
i.e. 20.05.2004 and section 4 notification, i.e. 30.06.2004, Mr.
Jinesh Kapadia, learned Advocate has not pressed the claim of
appreciation for the interregnum period. Yet in another
decision, the co-ordinate bench in the case of Special Land
Acquisition Officer vs. Patel Kanjibhai Ganeshbhai (supra) has
in paragraphs 3 and 4 observed thus:
3. In light of the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of
this Court in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 of which paragraphs
no. 14 and 15 are reproduced as under, the compensation
awarded to the claimants has to be on the basis of the valuation
report dated 20.05.2004.
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle
enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the
principles governing determination of market value of lands
acquired are well- settled and at the time of determination of
the compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain
directions as regard the the methods of valuation to be
considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within
a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale
of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired
and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years'
purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the
lands acquired. Therefore valuation made by the Valuation
Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in
deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding
compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the land,
character etc. If the impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court is examined in light of the aforesaid
observations and discussions, it appears to us that there is no
error committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the
price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose of
Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court
has committed error in not considering the aspect that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
valuation as was made of the land in question on 20.05.2004
and the said valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the
principles, as observed herein above and the Reference Court
has also totally lost sight of in not considering the deduction to
be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural
purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present
case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out
that it is the case of the original claimants that the Valuation
Committee has fixed the valuation of the Government land on
20.05.2004, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act
was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the
valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and, hence,
they are entitled for additional compensation, for which,
reliance is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel
Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji
Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts have been
pointed out before the Reference Court, it has not been
considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20%, which
the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through
the record and proceeding and found out that the Reference
Court has considered the report dated 20.05.2004 of the
Valuation Committee. It is found out that the Reference Court
has correctly evaluated the the report of the Valuation
Committee but at the time of considering the amount, 40%
amount is deducted from the said amount mentioned in the
report solely on the count that in identical matter in case of
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First Appeal
Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court has
deducted 40% amount from the price fixed by the competent
authority. It is found out from the record that in the said
matter, the acquired land was situated in outskirt of the city
area, whereas the present land, which is acquired by the
acquiring body, is situated within the center of the city and as
per the evidence led by the original claimants, surrounding and
vicinity area of the acquired land is well developed area and in
future, the Government need not have to spend any amount for
the development of the said area, therefore, basic price value of
the said land is on higher side, therefore, the deduction is
required to be made 20% instead of 40%. We have gone
through the record and proceedings and found out that the
land, which was acquired by the acquiring body, is small plot
and situated within the center of the city, therefore, we are of
the opinion that the original claimants are entitled for 20%
deduction instead of 40% deduction."
4. Thereafter, the above decision was followed in a subsequent
decision of this court in First Appeal No. 671 of 2019. In view
of the above, the total compensation therefore in light of the
aforesaid appeals, the orders of which are relied upon, has to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
be Rs.456/- per sq. mtrs for the respective acquired lands with
all statutory benefits and interest after adjustment of the
amounts already received by the claimants. Such statutory
benefit accrued shall be as per the rate prescribed under
Section 28 of the Act. It is further directed that the enhanced
compensation shall be deposited with the Nazir of concerned
Court within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
this order and on deposit of such amount, the same is directed
to be disburse and paid to respective claimants on due
verification of their identity by account payee cheque. "
9. At this stage the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat
through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Amaji
Mohanji Thakor(supra) would also be worth referring to
wherein in paragraphs 27 and 28 it has been held and
observed thus:
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India,
reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph 44
has observed as under:-
"44. One of the recognised methods for determination of
market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The
estimation of market value is with reference to the opinion of
experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily
constituted Expert committee, as expert evidence can
therefore form the basis for determining the market value in
land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will
be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge
the presumption that may flow from such guideline market
value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market
value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are
assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in
accordance with the prescribed procedure."
28. In the present case, the valuation has been made by the
Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District Collector
in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation Committee is
comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including
the District Collector himself, T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore,
there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation
Committee of the Government for fixation of the price for
allotment of the land at the very village by way of sale instance or
price fixed by the Government for allotment of a land to an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
organization should not be taken into consideration."
Therefore, if there is evidence available in the form of
report of the valuation committee, and in absence of any
contrary evidence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge
has committed error in relying upon the same.
10. Moreover, the evidence produced by the claimants were
certificates issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, so also, the
judgments rendered in other land acquisition reference cases.
In addition, Exh.36 - certified copy of valuation report dated
20.05.2004 of the District Valuation Committee was also
placed on record. As against this, the evidence produced by
the Land Acquisition Officer was merely the photocopy of the
award, map of village Ghela and extract of 7/12 forms. The
fact remains that the evidence produced by the claimants
could not be dislodged.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Judge has determined just and
reasonable compensation relying upon the report of the
District Valuation Committee dated 20.05.2004; however, so
far as the deduction is concerned, it ought to have been 20%
instead of 40% in view of the judgment in the case of Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravtaji Lumbaji
(supra). Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to claim
compensation at Rs.456/- per sq. mts. (Rs.570 - Rs.114 (20%
deduction)) together with all the statutory benefits and
interest as per the provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4879/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2025
undefined
The differential amount shall be calculated and deposited
within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. It is also directed that trial Court shall disburse
the remaining amount after due and proper verification.
12. Accordingly, the First appeals are dismissed and Cross
Objections stand partly allowed. The impugned judgment is
modified accordingly. Connected Civil Applications, if any,
stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
SINDHU NAIR
