IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO A.S. No. 155 OF 1998 Between: The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam Appellant AND Boddeti Kanakayya and another Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This appeal was already dismissed for default against the respondents – claimants 1 and 6 by order dated 19.2.1997. This appeal is preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) questioning the order and decree dated 23.03.1988 passed by the learned I Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P. No. 244 of 1983, enhancing the market value of the lands acquired to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.14/4, 14/58, 14/7, 14/10 and 14/11 of Venkojipalem village, Visakhapatnam District, from Rs.11/- per Sq. yard to Rs.14/- per Sq. yards and confirming the value of each of the tree at Rs.395/- apart from granting other statutory benefits under the Act. Since the appeal has been dismissed against the claimants 1 and 6 who are respondents 1 and 6 herein and since the land to the extent of Ac.0.45 cents is not divided among the parties, the judgment passed by the court below is inseparable among the respondents – claimants. In that view of the matter and as the judgment has become final against some of the respondents – claimants, there cannot be a different decree insofar as the remaining respondents – claimants are concerned. However, when the matter is listed for hearing on 21.11.2011 none appeared for the respondents – claimants and, therefore, it was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal today. Today also, even though the appeal is listed under the caption for dismissal, none appears for the respondents – claimants. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao November 22, 2011 MAS