HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.431 OF 1998 Dated: 23-03-2010 Between: The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit, Huzurabad. Appellant AND Kunta Mallaiah & Others. Respondent. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.431 OF 1998 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 enhancement of compensation made by the Subordinate Judge, Huzurabad in O.P.No.29 of 1996, dated 28.8.1997, whereby the market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.7,650/- to Rs.21,000/- per acre. An extent of Ac.7.16 gts. of land belonged to the claimants- respondents herein situated at Sirsedu Village of Jammikunta Mandal was acquired by Government for the purpose of excavation of DMB-16 Canal under the limits of Sirsed Village by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published in the Gazette on 02.04.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting due enquiry and after obtaining necessary sale statistics, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7,650/- per acre. The claimants having not satisfied with the fixation of the market value, filed 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.25,000/- per acre. In order to substantiate the market value of the acquired land, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 25.4.1986 as Ex.A.1. On behalf of referring officer, R.W.1 was examined and award proceedings and copy of the award were marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2. Under Ex.A.1-registered sale deed, dated 25.4.1986, which is just after 23 days of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, an extent of Ac.0.20 gts. of land was sold for Rs.30,000/- per acre. Considering Ex.A.1 and observing that though the Land Acquisition Officer took another sale deed of the same date i.e. 25.4.1986 into consideration, did not file the said sale deed to substantiate the market value determined by him, the reference Court concluded that the land covered by Ex.A.1 is nearer to the acquired land and whereas, the sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is far away from the acquired land and thus, taking the sale consideration at Rs.30,000/- per acre as reflected under Ex.A.1, fixed the net market value of the acquired land at Rs.21,000/- per acre after deducting 1/3rd from Rs.30,000/-. Questioning the said fixation, the present appeal is filed by the State. Notices sent to claimant-respondent Nos.11 and 25 were returned unserved for want of detailed and correct address, and that the notices sent to claimant-respondent Nos.1, 17 and 18 were returned with an endorsement that they died in the year 1999. But, so far, the appellant has not taken any steps to bring the legal representatives of claimant-respondent Nos.1, 17 and 18 on record and has not taken steps to serve the claimant- respondent Nos.11 and 25. In effect, the appeal stands dismissed against claimant-respondent Nos.1, 17 and 18 as abated and as a consequence, the compensation fixed against them at Rs.21,000/- per acre has become final. In that view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as against the rest of the claimants-respondents in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Papanna v. State of Karnataka (1996) 1 SCC 291). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ MARCH 23, 2010 G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. Tsr.