(1.) Heard learned Counsel. for the parties.
(2.) The only contention raised by Mr. Salkar, the learned A.G.A. for the appellants, is that while effecting the capitalization method, the Court proceeded to compute on the basis of gross yield of the property; whereas, according to law, it should have taken into account the net yield of the prop-erty. Mr. Salkar, learned A.G.A. relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Airports Authority of lndiaVs. Satyagopal Roy and others, 2002 AIR(SC) 1423, where the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the capitalization is the proc-ess of converting net income of the property into its equivalent capital value.
(3.) However, Mr. Sonak, learned counsel for the respondent, rightly pointed out that though report of the Valuer at one place re-fers to the gross income, the Valuer has made calculation on the basis of net income and it is only the calculation on the basis of net income that have been adopted by Court in paragraph 12. The Court in para 12 has ob-served as follows:-