ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We find two sets of appeals, one Civil Appeals Nos. 506-514 of 2001 filed by the claimants and the other Civil Appeal Nos. 515-523 of 2001 filed by the State, challenging the quantum of compensation. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5th November, 1999, partly allowing the State appeal by further reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per square meter from the rate of compensation determined at Rs. 58/- by the referring court, by its judgment and Award dated 14th October, 1998. The question raised in these appeals filed by the claimants is:

"Whether the High Court was justified in further reducing the market value of the land in question by Rs. 10/- on the facts and circumstances of this case?"

3. The question raised in the State appeals is to the following effect:

"Whether High Court was right in relying upon Ext. 16 instead of placing reliance on Ext. 46, if it erred, had it not committed an error in not further reducing the rate of compensation to be one fixed by it."

4. As both these two sets of appeals raise the questions which are inter-linked, hence, are being disposed of by means of this common order.

5. Two ma