JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Appeals arise out of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Acquisition Case Nos.71/2010 to 75/2010 and as such, First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 can be said to be Cross Appeals to First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court - learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.71/2010 to 75/2010, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said References and has awarded additional compensation to the claimants for the land acquired of Village : Pindarda/Pimplaj at the rate of Rs. 700/- per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the original opponent no.2 – acquiring body – ONGC has preferred First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and award in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr., the original claimants have preferred respective First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016 requesting to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present First Appeals are as under : 3.1 The land situated at Village : Pindarada/Pimplaj came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for a public purpose i.e. for the benefit of acquiring body – O.N.G.C. That, Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued and published on 24.02.2009. That, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 21.04.2010 determining and awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.77/- per sq.mtr. As the claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court i.e. at the rate of 77/- per sq.mtr., at the instance of the original claimants, References were made to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act. That before the learned Reference Court, the original claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per sq.mtr. That before the learned Reference Court, the original claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per sq.mtr. 3.2 On behalf of the original claimants, one Rajesh Bhupatsinh Vaghela, the claimant in LAR No.72/2010 came to be examined at Exh.16. The claimant also relied upon the market price determined by the District Valuation Committee with respect to the land situated at Village : Pimplaj, by which, the District Valuation Committee, of which, the District Collector, Gandhinagar was the Chairman, determined the market value of land situated at Village : Pimplaj as on 19.07.2006 as Rs.1550/- per sq.mtr. It was the case on behalf of the original claimants that the land situated at Village : Pindarda and Village : Pimplaj are as such having same potentiality and it is adjacent to each other. That before the Reference Court, the claimants also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.3795/2006, by which, with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pimplaj, for which, Notification under Section 4 was published on 01.12.1999, the Division Bench awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.353/- per sq.mtr. 3.3 Observing that there is no other evidence led by either of the parties and relying upon the decisions of this Court in First Appeal No.3795/2006 and First Appeal No.4810/2007 with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pimplaj, for which, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.06.1999 considering timegap of 10 years giving 10% rise per year, by impugned judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has determined and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available to the original claimants under the Act. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, both acquiring body as well as original claimants have preferred present First Appeals. 4. Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the acquiring body – appellant in First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016. Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants – respondents in First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 and on behalf of the appellants original claimants in First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016. Shri R.R. Marshall, learned senior advocate with Ms. Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants – respondents in First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 and on behalf of the appellants original claimants in First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016. Shri R.R. Marshall, learned senior advocate with Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent acquiring body in First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016. Ms. Shruti Pathak in First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 with Civil Application Nos.7239 to 7243/2016 and Mr. Rakesh Patel in First Appeal Nos.1767 to 1771 of 2016, learned Assistant Government Pleaders have appeared on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respective First Appeals. 5. Mr. K.J. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – acquiring body in First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 has vehemently submitted that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in determining and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr. giving 100% rise i.e. 10% per year considering time-gap of 10 years. It is submitted that as such, there would be a time-gap of 9 years, 2 months and 17 days and, therefore, if 92% increase is to be given (considering 10% rise per year), 92% on Rs.353/- would come to Rs.324.76 per sq.mtr. and after rounding up, it will be Rs.325/- per sq.mtr. and, therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.678/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that therefore there is an arithmetical error committed by the learned Reference Court while giving 100% rise considering Time-gap of 10 years and while awarding and determining at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that therefore to the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. No other submissions have been made so far as First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016 are concerned. 6. Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has vehemently submitted that learned Reference Court has materially erred in determining and awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr. 6.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in giving 10% rise per year mechanically. 6.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the learned Reference Court has materially erred in giving 10% rise per year mechanically. 6.2 It is further submitted that while determining and awarding compensation, the learned Reference Court has not at all considered the development between the years 1999 to 2009. 6.3 It is further submitted that even the learned Reference Court has not appreciated and considered the fact while determining the market price and the compensation, the lands in question were on the highway touching Gandhinagar – Mahudi Vijapur Highway. It is submitted that even the Special Land Acquisition Officer in its award under Section 11 of the Act has also considered the development and lands on the frontage and touching highway and even granted 30% development. 6.4 It is further submitted that even the learned Reference Court has not at all appreciated and considered the report dated 19.07.2008 of the District Valuation Committee produced at Exh.29, by which, with respect to the land situated at Village : Pimplaj, market price as on 2008 would come to Rs.1550/- per sq.mtr. It is further submitted that as such, the said report was produced through and by examining witness – Chitnis to the Office of the Collector. It was originally produced at Mark – 25/2 and in fact, in the deposition/evidence of Chitnis to the Collector, who was examined at Exh.28, the learned Reference Court has observed that same be exhibited at Exh.29. However through oversight and by mistake, same has not been given exhibit number, however, there is specific order while recording deposition/evidence of witness examined at Exh.28 that the said document produced at Mark – 25/2 is ordered to be exhibited at Exh.29. 6.5 It is further submitted by Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the original claimants that as such, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in mechanically granting 10% rise per year without appreciating the evidence of the claimant, who was examined at Exh.16 and case on behalf of the original claimants was considered in the deposition of the claimant that the lands in question were more developed land having more potentiality and it was just at a distance of only 4-5 kms. from Gandhinagar and it was touching the highway. from Gandhinagar and it was touching the highway. It is submitted that therefore more particularly, when the Special Land Acquisition Officer also while passing award under Section 11 of the Act took note off the development and the lands touching highway had considered and granted 30% rise towards the development, it is requested to award atleast granting 30% further rise towards the development and the lands acquired were touching the highway and near to Gandhinagar. It is submitted that therefore if 30% rise is considered towards the development and more particularly in the aforesaid First Appeals on the basis of the market price were determined by this Court as on 1999 and in the present case, lands have been acquired in the year 2009, the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation atleast Rs.910/- per sq.mtr. 6.6 In support of her submissions, she has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5655. 7. Appeals preferred by the original claimants are vehemently opposed by Shri R.R. Marshall, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body. 7.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Marshall, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body that in fact, the claimants relied upon the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No.3795/2006 and, thereafter, after considering the fact that there was a time-gap of approximately 10 years (actually 9 years and 2 months) when the learned Reference Court has determined compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq.mtr. giving 10% rise per year, same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 7.2 It is submitted that as such, reliance placed upon the report of the District Valuation Committee is concerned, same is with respect to Village : Pimplaj and, therefore, same cannot be relied upon while considering the market price/compensation with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pindarda. 7.3 It is further submitted by Shri Marshall, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body that even the said report of the District Valuation Committee was not even exhibited/given exhibit number and it was at Mark – 25/2 only. 7.3 It is further submitted by Shri Marshall, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body that even the said report of the District Valuation Committee was not even exhibited/given exhibit number and it was at Mark – 25/2 only. It is submitted that therefore no reliance can be placed upon the report of the District Valuation Committee dated 19.07.2008, upon which, reliance has been placed by the original claimants. 7.4 It is submitted that as such in the facts of the case and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in First Appeal No.3795/2006 and allied First Appeals as well as another decision of this Court in First Appeal No.4810/2007 and other allied First Appeals with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pimplaj – adjacent village and even the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.5010/2007 with respects to the lands acquired of Village : Pindarda and in absence of any other evidence produced on record by the original claimants, when the learned Reference Court has determined and awarded compensation giving 10% rise per year, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court. 7.5 Shri Marshall, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ONGC Ltd. Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 454 and submitted that in each and every case, there did not any presumption of any development and it depends upon number of factors. It is submitted that in the present case, there is no evidence led to establish and prove the development between the years 1999 to 2009 and there are no positive factors established as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, which would require deviation of giving 10% rise and to consider more rise per year. Making above submission and relying on the aforesaid judgment, it is requested to dismiss the present First Appeals of the original claimants. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the common impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. We have re-appreciated the evidence on record from the record and proceedings available with the Court. 9. 8. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused the common impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. We have re-appreciated the evidence on record from the record and proceedings available with the Court. 9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the lands situated in Village : Pindarda came to be acquired for the public purpose – for the acquiring body – ONGC. Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued and published on 24.02.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act awarding and determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.77/- per sq.mtr. That on Reference under Section 18 of the Act relying upon the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.3795/2006 with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pimplaj (just adjacent village) and for which, Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 07.12.1999 and by which, the Division Bench of this Court determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.353/- per sq.mtr. and, thereafter, considering time-gap of approximately 10 years between two Section 4 of the Act Notifications (as in the present case the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 24.02.2009) giving 10% rise per year by impugned common judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- sq. mtr. That while passing impugned common judgment and award, the learned Reference Court has also referred to and considered the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2014 passed in First Appeal Nos.4810/2007 to 4815/2007, by which, with respect to the lands acquired of Village : Pimplaj and for which, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and published on 22.09.1999 and determined and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.335/- per sq.mtr. That the learned Reference Court also took note off and referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.5010/2007 with respect to the land acquired of very Village : Pindarda, however for which, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued and published on 07.12.1999 and by which, the learned Single Judge considering and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in First Appeal No.3795/2006, determined and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.353/- per sq.mtr. 9.1 It is the case on behalf of the original claimants that looking to the development between the year 1999 and 2009 that the acquired lands were situated at Gandhinagar – Mahudi Vijapur Highway and were as such touching the highway and only 5 kms. away from Gandhinagar, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in mechanically giving 10% rise per year. It is the case on behalf of the original claimants that assuming that the learned Reference Court was justified in considering the decisions of this Court in the aforesaid First Appeal Nos.3795/2006 to 3799/2006, First Appeal Nos.4810/2007 to 4815/2007 and First Appeal No.5010/2007, in that case also, the learned Reference Court ought to have determined and awarded compensation for the lands acquired in the year 2009 by adding approximately 30% towards the development in between. In support of the above, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Om Prakash (supra). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court took a judicial notice of the fact that when the compensation proceeding continued over a period of almost 20 years (in that case), the potential of the land acquired must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years and cannot be limited to the near future alone. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.125.15 per sq.mtr. The High Court enhanced the same to Rs.135.16 per sq.mtr. and on appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing above, determined and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.225 per sq.mtr. Therefore as such, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in mechanically applying 10% rise per year. The High Court enhanced the same to Rs.135.16 per sq.mtr. and on appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing above, determined and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.225 per sq.mtr. Therefore as such, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in mechanically applying 10% rise per year. 9.2 At this stage, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5655 is required to be referred to. Considering earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Rama Reddi & Ors. Vs. 9.2 At this stage, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5655 is required to be referred to. Considering earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of P. Rama Reddi & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., reported in 1995 AIR SCW 871, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court : “While dealing with the question of the potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy's case (supra) observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they being (and we quote), "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; (iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes; (v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land; (vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; (vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.” 9.3 In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed and held that even in the case, when the proceeding for determination of the compensation continued for a period of 20 years, potential of the land acquired must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years and cannot be limited to the near future alone. 9.4 In paragraph no.17 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, “17. 9.4 In paragraph no.17 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, “17. Although, in the present matter, sale instances around or near abouts the date of Notification of the present acquisition are available yet these cannot justify or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on the date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized only some time in the future and it is open to a landowner claimant to contend that the potential can be examined first at the time of the Section 18 Reference, the first Appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court in appeal as well. We must also highlight that Collectors, as agents of the State Government, are extraordinarily chary in awarding compensation and the land owners have to fight for decades before they are able to get their due. We take the present case as an example. The land was notified for acquisition in May 1990. The collector rendered his award in May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by its award dated January 2001 increased the compensation to Rs.125 per square yard for the land of the road behind the ECE factory and Rs.150 per square yard for the land abutting the road which would come to Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/- respectively for the two pieces of land. This itself is a huge increase vis-a-vis the Collector's award. The High Court in First Appeal by its judgment of 24th September 2007 enhanced the compensation for the two categories to Rs.135 and 160 respectively making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-. In other words, this is the compensation which ought to have been awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on 12th May 1993. This has, however, come to the land owner for the first time as a result of the judgment of the High Court which is under challenge in this appeal; in other words, a full 17 years from the date of Notification under Section 4 and 14 years from the date of the award of the Collector on which date the possession of the land must have been taken from the landowner. Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired.” 9.5 Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the facts of the case on hand and deposition of one of the claimants and keeping in view the development in the area spread over, the period of 10 years between the year 1999 to 2009 and the acquired lands were situated at Gandhinagar-Mahudi-Vijapur highway and touching the highway and only 5 Kms. away from Gandhinagar and considering the great potential value, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in giving price rise at the rate of 10% per annum for the period from 1999 to 2009 i.e. of 10 years, mechanically. 9.6 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the original claimants had also heavily relied upon the report of the District Valuation Committee dated 19.07.2008, by which, with respect to the land of Village : Pimplaj, which is just adjacent village (as such both villages are considered as Pimplaj and Pindarda) as on 19.07.2008, the Committee determined the market price at the rate of Rs.1550/- per sq.mtr. It is to be noted that the District Valuation Committee is consisting of the District Development Officer, the Collector and the Town Planning Department and the head of the said Committee is the Collector. The report of the District Valuation Committee dated 19.07.2008 is produced by the original claimant through the office of the Collector – Chitnis to the Collector, who has been examined at Exh.28. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said report which was produced at Mark – 25/2 was as such given exhibit number 29 as referred to in the deposition of the witness examined at Exh.28. However through oversight and by mistake, the said Mark – 25/2 is not given exhibit number. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the said report which was produced at Mark – 25/2 was as such given exhibit number 29 as referred to in the deposition of the witness examined at Exh.28. However through oversight and by mistake, the said Mark – 25/2 is not given exhibit number. However from the deposition of the witness examined at Exh.28, it is very clear that the report of the District Valuation Committee dated 19.07.2008, which was produced at Mark – 25/2 was ordered to be exhibited at Exh.29. However looking to the smallness of the area of which the market price was determined by the District Valuation Committee, this Court may not consider the market price at the rate of Rs.1550/- per sq.mtr as per the report of the District Valuation Committee dated 19.07.2008. 9.7 Looking to the development, which had taken place in the area and the fact that the lands acquired were touching the highway and just 4-5 kms. away from the Gandhinagar, which is a capital of Gujarat, if over and above 10% rise per year, further 25% is added towards the development in the years between 1999 and 2009, it can be said to be just compensation for the lands acquired. Considering and accordingly, the market price of the lands acquired as on 24.02.2009 can be said to be Rs.847.50 per sq.mtr. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal preferred by the original claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016 filed by the original claimants are hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Acquisition Case Nos.71/2010 to 75/2010 is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.847.50 per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including the interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act. However, it is observed and clarified that the interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act would be from the date on which the possession of the acquired lands were taken under Section 16 of the Act. However, it is observed and clarified that the interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act would be from the date on which the possession of the acquired lands were taken under Section 16 of the Act. Now the acquiring body to deposit the amount of compensation as determined as above with the Reference Court within a period of six weeks from today. First Appeal Nos.1767/2016 to 1771/2016 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. 10.1 Consequently, First Appeal Nos.1630/2016 to 1634/2016 preferred by the acquired body deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed. 10.2 Civil Application Nos.7239/2016 to 7243/2016 also stand dismissed. Order accordingly.