THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.No.1768 of 1999 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This appeal is directed against the order, dated 02-11-1998, passed in L.G.O.P.No.62 of 89 by the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The land to an extent of Ac.4-50 cents in Sy.No.218/1 of Bommanampadu Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, was acquired for providing house sites for weaker sections. The dispute in the appeal is only to an extent of Ac.0-60 cents, which is part of item No.4 of the Award. As there was a dispute between the appellant and the 2nd respondent with regard to their right and entitlement to a share in the above award, the Land Acquisition Officer-respondent herein referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of the claim of the appellant as against the 2nd respondent. In support of his claim, the appellant did not adduce any oral evidence except filing Ex.B-1 (certified copy of petition in I.A.No.1007/77 in O.S.No.653 of 35 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Ongole) and Ex.B-2 (certified copy of the order, dated 31-12-1985 in I.A.No.1007/77 in O.S.No.653 of 35 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Ongole). The 2nd respondent herein examined himself as RW.1 and marked Exs.B-3 to B-27 in support of his claim that he is entitled for half share in the Award. The appellant contended that he is entitled for award in exclusion of the 2nd respondent herein. He further contended that though there was a compromise decree in O.S.No.653 of 35 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Ongol, the said compromise decree was not executed and, therefore, the 2nd respondent is not entitled for half share in the Award. On the other hand, the case of the 2nd respondent is that he being the son of Mahalakshmamma is entitled for half share in the Award in view of the compromise decree in O.S.No.653 of 35, dated 21-10-1936. According to which, the mother of the appellant and the mother of the 2nd respondent are entitled for equal right to be maintained out of the income derived from out of the said property. The said compromise decree has become final. The appellant mainly relied on Exs.B-1 and B-2 contending that the application filed for execution of the said decree was dismissed. As the said decree was not executed, the mother of the 2nd respondent cannot claim half share. It is not in dispute that the said compromise decree in O.S.No.653 of 35 has become final and according to which, the mother of the appellant and the mother of the 2nd respondent have got equal right to be maintained out of the income derived from out of the said property and there is no dispute about their joint enjoyment of the said property. In fact, part of the subject matter of the suit land in O.S.No.635 of 35 was jointly alienated by both of them under Ex.B-7 registered sale deed and the land was also jointly leased out by both of them under Exs.B-13 to B-16. Exs.B-17, 20 and 21 would go to show that both the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent have got half share in the said properties, which originally belonged to their mothers viz., Mahalakshmamma and Subbamma. As the said compromise decree was acted upon by the mother of the appellant, it is not open to the appellant to dispute and resile from the said compromise decree and more so, the same has been acted upon through out during the life time of the mothers of the appellant and the 2nd respondent and in fact both of them have jointly enjoyed the said property. In view of the judgment and decree under compromise, which was acted upon by Mahalakshmamma and Subbamma, as is evident from their subsequent actions, we are of the opinion that the court below had rightly held that the appellant and the 2nd respondent are entitled to equal share in the disputed land of Ac.0-60 cents i.e., Ac.0-30 cents each. We are of the opinion that the court below had rightly answered the reference holding that the appellant and the 2nd respondent are entitled to equal share in the acquired land and as the land was already acquired, they are entitled for equal share in the award. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: 22-06-2010 Prv