1 fa1049/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.1049 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Beed & Anr. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS Mahadeo s/o Dada Deogunde, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Malkachiwadi, u/v Hiversinga, Tal. Patoda, District Beed & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi,A.G.P. for appellants. Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Appeal dismissed against respondent No.2 as per order dated 26-03-2010. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 fa1049/2009 2. Present appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award dated 21-03-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Beed in L.A.R. No. 234 of 1997. A few facts of the matter are as under : 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification dated 12-06-1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring respondents' original claimants' agricultural land situated at village Malkachiwadi under village Hiversinga, Taluka Patoda District Beed for Minor Irrigation Tank Project at Hivarsinga. State of Maharashtra acquired total area of 2 Hector2 53 Ares of original claimants. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. passed award dated 30-03-1996 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 22,000/- Per Hector and Rs.23,000/- Per Hector. The appellants took possession of the acquired land on 04-04-1983. 3 fa1049/2009 Thereafter, they paid compensation to the claimants on 08-04-1996. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award passed by the S.L.A.O., the respondents - original claimants filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs.1000/- per Are i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- per Hector. In the said Reference, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs.64,500/- per Hector. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21-03-2001 passed by the Reference Court, the State of Maharashtra preferred the present appeal. 6. In the present appeal, this Court by order dated 08-06-2009 issued notice to the respondents and called Record and Proceedings. Said order also indicates that the appeal will be heard 4 fa1049/2009 finally at admission stage. 7. On 07-09-2009 office made remark on Farad that notice issued to respondent No.2 returned unserved with Bailiff's remark 'died', Therefore, this Court, by order dated 07-09-2009 granted four weeks time to take appropriate steps. Farad also shows that on 06-10-2009 and 17-11-2009 this Court granted further time to take appropriate steps for bringing legal heirs on record of deceased respondent No.2. 8. When the above mentioned matter was on board of 26-03-2010, at that time, this Court (Coram : K.U. Chandiwal, J.) granted four weeks time to the appellant to remove office objection. In that order, it is specifically stated that if the appellant failed to remove office objection within four weeks, the matter shall stand dismissed to that extent. In spite of the conditional order, the appellant failed to remove office objection and therefore, office made noting 5 fa1049/2009 in cause title of the first appeal that the appeal dismissed against respondent No.2 as per order dated 26-03-2010. 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents - original claimants submits that the impugned judgment and award dated 21-03-2001 passed by the Reference Court is in favour of the respondents jointly. Shares of each claimant are not identified by the Reference Court. Therefore, when one of the respondents - original claimant expires, the entire matter abates. 10. It is admitted fact that the Reference Court passed judgment and award dated 21-03-2001 awarding compensation of Rs.1,07,325/- to the respondents - original claimants jointly alongwith additional benefit as per amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Operative part of the judgment and award dated 21-03-2001 reads as under. 6 fa1049/2009 O R D E R "(1) The petition is partly allowed. (2) The respondents do pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,325/- (Rs. One Lack Seven thousand three hundred twenty five) to petitioners alongwith amount of component calculated at the rate of Rs.12% thereon from 30.9.1993 to 30.3.1996 vide Section 23(1-A) of the Act, and respondents also do pay sum of 30% on the amount of Rs.1,07,325/- as solatium vide Section 23(2) of the Act, which comes to Rs.32,197.50 ps. (Rs. Thirty Two thousand one hundred ninety seven and paise fifty). (3) The respondents do pay the interest to the petitioners on the aggregate amount mentioned in para (2) above at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from 4.4.1983 to 3.4.1984 and at the rate of Rs.15% per annum from 4.4.1984 till the date of realization 7 fa1049/2009 of entire amount, vide Section 28 of the Act. (4) Respondents do pay the proportionate costs of this reference petition to the petitioners and shall bear its own. (5) Award be drawn up accordingly." 11. There is no doubt that the appellant failed and neglected to take appropriate steps to bring legal heirs on record of deceased respondent No.2 within time. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Teja Singh and others reported in A.I.R. Punjab and Haryana 201 held that in appeal filed by the Government under Section 54, if one of the brothers died pending appeal and if his legal heirs are not brought on record in time then whole appeal abates. Head Note A reads as under. "(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894, Sections 18, 26, and 54, 1 - Civil 8 fa1049/2009 P.C. (1908), Order 22, Rules 4,11 -Award of compensation jointly in favour of 4 brothers - Appeal by Government under Section 54 - One of the brothers dying pending appeal - L.Rs. not brought on record in time - Whole appeal abates. Brief Note:- (A) Where in a proceeding under Section 18 a consolidated assessment was made of the price of the land and an award was made jointly in favour of 4 brothers, and pending an appeal by the Government under Section 54 one of the brothers died and his L.Rs. were not brought on record in time, it was held that the assessment did not admit of severability of any specified interest in each of the brothers and that the whole appeal abated in toto." 12. In the present case, the appellant has not brought on record the legal heirs of respondent No.2, therefore, the appeal dismissed against respondent No.2 as per order dated 26-03-2010. In view of ratio laid down by the 9 fa1049/2009 Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Union of India (supra), the appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra is liable to be dismissed as entire appeal is abated. 13. The First Appeal is dismissed, as abated. sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/fa1049.09