THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.Nos.449 of 1999 And A.S.Nos.451 & 3997 of 2000 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 1. A.S.No.449 of 1999 and A.S.No.3997 of 2000 are filed against the order in O.P.No.181 of 1989 dated 1.11.1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam, i.e., the requisition and acquisitioning authorities. Later, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, following the order in O.P.No.181 of 1989, by order dated 4.02.1995 disposed of O.P.Nos.182 and 183 of 1989. Against the same common order in O.P.No.182 of 1989 the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam, preferred A.S.No.451 of 2000. 2. Earlier against the common order dated 4.02.1995 in O.P.No.183 of 1989 the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam filed A.S.(SR).No.29593 of 1997 in which the claimants also filed cross-objections and in the said appeal there was a delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay. Since notices could not be served on certain respondents, the said application was dismissed for default. Consequently, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 4.12.2007 dismissed the A.S.(SR) observing that though the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value @ 99,500 per acre the reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.1,49,500/- per acre, as each of the claimant possessed few square yards of land. Since the order of the reference Court has become final against some of the claimants the other claimants are also entitled to receive the very same compensation. Thus the judgment in O.P.No.183 of 1989 dated 4.2.1995 has become final. 3. Now the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that the subject matter of these appeals also covered by the aforesaid judgment and hence these appeals are also liable to be dismissed. 4. In these appeals also notices have been served on some of the claimants but could not be served on some claimants for non- payment of batta. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as no steps have been taken for service of notice even after expiry of 10 years and that the common order dated 4.02.1995 passed in O.P.No.183 of 1989 has been confirmed by this Court in A.S.(SR).No.29593 of 1997 dated 4.12.2007, the present appeals are also liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 27th October, 2010 Js.