HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Date: 12-08-2011 Between: Polam Reddy Raghava Reddy ……… appellant And Bulagakula Ramana Reddy and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S.No.1418 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.S.Appa Rao) This appeal is filed against the order dated 15-10-1999 passed in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The appellant herein is Respondent No.5 in the said L.A.O.P. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are referred to in the Reference Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands of the respondents-claimants to an extent of Ac.12-80 cents situated in Sy.No.304 of Penubarthi village, was acquired by the Government by issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting an enquiry, passed the award fixing the compensation at Rs.2,18,628/- for the total extent of land. However, the respondent Nos.1 to 8 disputed the same. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Reference Court under Section 31(2) of the Act to determine as to who is entitled for the compensation. 3. During the course of enquiry before the Reference Court, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of the claimants, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked. The Reference Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that respondent No.1 is entitled to the compensation to an extent of Ac.3-00 out of total extent of Ac.12-80 cents, in the total compensation of Rs.2,18,628/-, and respondents 2 to 4 together are entitled to the compensation of the remaining extent of Ac.9-80 cents. It is further held that Respondent Nos.5, and 7 to 9 are not entitled for any share in the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, claimant No.5 preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Reference Court ought to have seen that in O.S.No.4 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiffi, Venkatagiri, in which the respondents 2 to 4 are the parties, it is declared that the appellant is entitled to Ac.3-20 cents out of Ac.12-80 cents and the decree and judgment in the said suit have become final and the same are binding on the respondent Nos.2 to 4, and therefore, they cannot claim any compensation insofar as the extent of Ac.3-20 cents is concerned, and that in view of the said judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1990, the vendors have no title to sell the entire extent of Ac.12-80 cents in Sy.No.304 in favour of respondents 2 to 4. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to claim the compensation for an extent of Ac.3-20 cents pursuant to the decree and judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1990? 6. As seen from the impugned order, the Reference Court in its order held that Respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8 have not produced any material and they have not filed any counter, though notice was issued to them in Dis.No.982, dated 14-09-1999, and their evidence was closed. The reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act as per the award in question. As seen from the award, it was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer that O.S.No.4 of 1990 was filed by Polamreddy Raghava Reddy, the appellant herein, and it is also noted that one Polamreddy Venkata Ratnam Reddy @ Sugreeva Reddy and Sri Polamreddy Ramana Reddy i.e., Respondent Nos.7 and 8 respectively, have filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 1990 against the appellant herein and some others, and both are pending at the time of passing the award, thereby the Land Acquisition Officer thought it fit to refer the matter under Section 31(2) of the Act. On reference, the Reference Court issued notice to all the concerned, but for the reasons best known to the respondent Nos.5, 7 and 8, they did not participate in the proceedings and maintained silence. It is the admitted fact that the above suit in O.S.No.4 of 1990 was pending during the pendency of L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993. O.S.No.4 of 1990 was decreed on 30-08-1996, whereas L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993 was disposed of on 15-10-1999. The appellant, who is the aggrieved party in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993, did not raise his little finger about his rights pursuant to the judgment in O.S.No.4 of 1990. Having received notices from the Reference Court, he did not choose to adduce any evidence by filing counter. The conduct of the appellant in not filing the counter and failing to participate in the proceedings, cannot be said that he has no knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993. Had he participated in the proceedings, the Reference Court certainly would have adjudicated the matter in a right perspective regarding the rights of the parties in the proceedings. But, the appellant, having kept silent all through during the pendency of L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993, now raised the contention that the decree in O.S.No.4 of 1990 was not challenged, thereby he is entitled to a share in the compensation to an extent of Ac.3-20 and such contention cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination. The Reference Court discussed the evidence on record and rightly held that respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 9 are not entitled to any share in the compensation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (R-5) and the argument advanced on his behalf are of no consequence in view of his non-participation in the trial in L.A.O.P.No.19 of 1993. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the finding of the Reference Court is sustainable. We see no merits in the appeal and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 12-08-2011 YCR