HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2596 OF 1999 Dated: 21-04-2010 Between: Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda Appellant AND Dharmana Narayanadasu & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.2596 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) questioning the order and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam made in L.A.O.P.No.3 of 1991, dated 26.02.1999. An extent of Hec.5.66.25, situated in various survey numbers of Borubadra Village of Pathapatnam Mandal belonged to the claimants-respondents herein was acquired for widening the Temburu-Pathapatnam Road by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 20.7.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting due enquiry and after obtaining necessary sale statistics, passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.12,100/- per acre in respect of wet lands and Rs.5,500/- per acre for dry lands. Aggrieved by the said fixation of the market value, the claimants filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the civil Court for due determination of the market value of the acquired land. On reference being made, the claimants appeared before the reference Court and filed claim statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry lands. In order to prove the market value, on behalf of the referring officer, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the claimants, R.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked. The reference Court after analyzing the oral evidence and documentary evidence brought on record, fixed the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre for wet land and Rs.10,000/- per acre for dry land. This appeal is pending for the last 11 years for want of taking steps to bring the legal representatives of Respondent Nos.1,9,10,19,32 and 36 on record, as notices sent to them returned with an endorsement ‘died’. This Court by order, dated 30.6.2008 granted four weeks’ time to bring the legal representatives of the above respondents-claimants on record with a default clause that failure to do so, the appeal shall stand dismissed against them as abated. In spite of the conditional order, the appellant has not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives on record, and therefore, the appeal stood dismissed as against the respondent Nos. 1,9,10,19,32 and 36. In effect, the compensation fixed by the reference Court has become final against the respondent Nos. 1,9,10,19,32 and 36. It is well settled that all the land-owners, whose lands were acquired by the same notification for the same purpose, are entitled to receive the same compensation unless it is brought on record that the land has been categorized into various categories to deny the same compensation. Since the compensation fixed by the reference Court has become final against the respondent Nos. 1,9,10,19,32 and 36 in view of the dismissal of the appeal against them as abated, the other claimants, who are covered by the same notification and by the same award, are entitled to receive the very same compensation and they cannot be discriminated. In view of the same, the appeal is liable to be dismissed against the rest of the respondents-claimants. . Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ APRIL 21, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr.