1 fa2052/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2052 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1265 OF 2008 The Executive Engineer, Beed. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sadashiv s/o Tatyarao Gutte, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Nannaj, Tal.Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. Died per heirs and L.Rs. 1/1.Dadarao s/o Sadashiv Gutte, R/o. As above. 2. Tatyarao s/o Shivram Gutte, R/o. As above. 3. Venkatrao s/o Tatyarao Gutte, R/o. As above. 4. The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for appellant. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No.4. ... 2 fa2052/2010 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : . Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.4. 2. Present appeal is preferred by original respondent No.2 acquiring body against the judgment and award dated 17-01-2008 passed by the Reference Court, Ambajogai in L.A.R. No. 925 of 1987. A few facts of the matter are as under : 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification dated 14-12-1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring respondent original claimant's house property situated at Nanaj, Taluka Ambejogai District Beed for construction of Borna Medium Project. Thereafter, notice under Section 6 of the 3 fa2052/2010 Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30-10-1980. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. passed award and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired property 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. In the said Reference, the Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired property by impugned judgment and award dated 17-01-2008. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17-01-2008 passed by the Reference Court, the respondent No.2 Acquiring Body preferred the present appeal. 6. In the present appeal, the acquiring body preferred Civil Application No.1265 of 2008 for stay of the execution and operation of the 4 fa2052/2010 judgment and award dated 17-01-2008 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.925/1987. In the said Civil Application, this Court ( Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J.) by order dated 07-09-2009 issued notice to the respondents returnable after four weeks. Office noting dated 05-02-2010 shows that notice issued to respondent No.1/2 and 1/3 returned unserved with Bailiff's remark. Thereafter, on 01-04-2010 Court granted time to take appropriate steps to remove office objection. Lastly, this Court ( Coram: K. U. Chandiwal, J.) by order dated 08-04-2010 passed conditional order directing the appellant to remove office objections without four weeks and if office objections are not removed, the matter to stand dismissed without referring back to the Court to that extent. In spite of that, the appellant failed to remove office objection/service of legal heirs of respondent Nos.1/2 and 1/3. Therefore,, office made endorsement on cause title of Civil Application and First Appeal that Civil Application and Appeal 5 fa2052/2010 is dismissed against respondent Nos.1/2 and 1/3. 7. I heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents original claimants are entitled to compensation under section 23 sub section 1 Clause (v) of the Land Acquisition Act. She further submits that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of acquired property to the tune of Rs.7624/-. She submits that in several first appeals arising out of the same notification, this Court passed order and allowed those appeals. She placed reliance on order dated 10-11-2008 passed by this Court ( Coram : V.R. Kingaonkar, J.) in First Appeal Nos. 2941/2008, 2942/2008 and 2943/2008. 8. In my view, it is not necessary to go to the merits of the present case. The Reference 6 fa2052/2010 Court passed judgment and award dated 17-01-2008 and held that the respondents original claimants are jointly entitled to enhanced compensation If the award is passed jointly in favour of several claimants and during the pendency of the appeal if one of the claimant expires, the entire appeal abates. 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 in whose favour award is passed jointly dies pending appeal and if his legal heirs are not brought on record in time, the whole appeal abates. Head Note A reads as under. "(A) Land Acquisition Act (1894, Sections 18, 26, and 54, 1 - Civil 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 - 7 fa2052/2010 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." 9. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant failed to take appropriate steps to remove office objections about service on legal heirs of respondent Nos. 1/2 and 1/3. Therefore, in my view, the entire appeal abates. 10. The First Appeal is dismissed, as abated. 8 fa2052/2010 11. In the light of the dismissal of first appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application, it is disposed of accordingly. sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/fa2052.10