HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR LAAS.MP.No.865 of 2009; Cross-Objections (Sr.)No.8270 of 2009 AND A.S. No.2239 OF 2003 DATED:15.09.2009 BETWEEN: The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector/RDO, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar. …Appellant AND K.Rajashaker Reddy & Another …Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR LAAS.MP.No.865 of 2009; Cross-Objections (Sr.)No.8270 of 2009 AND A.S. No.2239 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the order and decree, dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal in O.P.No.594 of 1994. Against the very same common order passed by the Senior Civil Judge in respect of other O.Ps. that were disposed of along with the present O.P., the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S.No.2237 of 2003 and batch, and that this Court by common judgment dated 17.12.2008 while dismissing the appeals allowed the cross-objections preferred by the claimants therein fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.53,000/- per acre. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals also fairly conceded that the appeal deserves to be dismissed following the above said judgment. With regard to the cross-objections, it appears, taking clue from allowing the cross-objections in A.S.No.2237 of 2003 and batch, cross-objections (Sr).No.8270 of 2009 was filed on 5.9.2009 with an application in LAAS.MP.No.865 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the cross-objections. Even according to the cross- objectors, the notice in the appeal was served on them on 10.10.2003. The fact of claimants not filing any cross-objections for all these years goes to show that they have satisfied with the fixation of the compensation, but only after allowing the cross- objections in A.S.No.2237 of 2003 and batch by this Court, which arose out of the very same award, the present cross-objections are filed. Further with regard to the reasons for the delay in preferring the cross-objections, it is stated ‘the delay is neither wanton nor deliberate but due to the illness’, which hardly constitute any cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, LAAS.MP.No.865 of 2009 is dismissed. Consequent thereto, Cross-objections (Sr).No.8270 of 2009 is rejected. Registry is directed to refund the court-fee paid on cross-objections. Under those circumstances, following the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.2237 of 2003 and batch, dated 17.12.2008 and for the reasons mentioned therein, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 Tsr.