THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. NO. 1160 OF 2001 DT.19.12.2011 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition Officer, Simhadripuram … Petitioner And G Reddi Malla Reddy and others … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: G.P. for Appeals Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. NO. 1160 OF 2001 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) This appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 25.4.1986 passed in O.P. No. 2 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.60,000/- per acre. Pursuant to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 27.9.1983 the lands of the respondents/claimants to an extent of Ac. 4.88 cents of Simhadripuram village, Pulivendala taluk were acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and after conducting an enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 6.3.1984 fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.6,000/- per acre. On protest, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the reference Court, on behalf of the Referring Officer/Mandal Revenue Officer, one Mr S.Ghouse Mohidden, Assistant of Mandal Revenue Officer, Simhadripuram was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.3 were marked and on behalf of the claimants R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.B.1 to B.6 were marked. The referring Court taking into consideration Ex.B.6/registered sale deed dated 13.6.1983, which is about three months prior to notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.60,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, submitted that Ex.B6 is not relevant and the same cannot be a basis for enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,000/- to that of Rs.60,000/- and the order under appeal is unsustainable. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals and perused the material available on record. The appeal is already dismissed for default as against the respondents 1 and 5 on 23.6.2009 and respondents 3 and 7 on 15.2.2001 and it survives only as against respondent 4 and 6 and the order of the reference Court dated 25.4.1986 has become final insofar as they are concerned. It is evident from the judgment under appeal that the respondents/claimants are joint owners of the acquired land and since the order under appeal dated 25.4.1986 has become final insofar as respondents/claimants 1,3,5 and 7 has become final, it cannot be adjudicated or interfered against respondents 4 and 6 who are joint owners, inasmuch as there cannot be two distinct decrees in respect of a joint property which was acquired. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J _____________ K.S. APPA RAO,J DATE: 19.12.2011 TVK