HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S. No. 1951 OF 1995. DATED 9TH MARCH, 2010. BETWEEN: Ramisetti Ganga Rao …Appellant and Special Deputy Collector (LA) Y.R. P. Unit No.3, Peddapuram and anr. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY A.S. No. 1951 OF 1995 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 read with Section 96 CPC ﬁled by the appellant/second claimant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.1995 passed in O.P.No.131 of 1985 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, whereby the reference made under Section 31(2) of the L.A. Act for adjudication of the right to receive the compensation amount awarded for the acquisition of the lands was answered in favour of the ﬁrst claimant and negatived for the second claimant on the ground that he failed to prove his title over the land under acquisition. An extent of Ac.3.24 cents of land covered by Sy.Nos. 99/2B, 2C and 100/1B of Uttarakanchi village of Parthipadu mandal was taken possession by the Irrigation and Power Department on 20.12.1982 for construction of Sub Divisional Camp Colony at Uttarakanchi. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, after following the due procedure and conducting due enquiry ﬁxed the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.29,160/- and the amount of Rs.52,847.60 Ps covered by the Award was ordered to be deposited in the Court under Section 31(2) of the L.A. Act as there was a dispute of ownership between claimants in respect of the land under acquisition. The entire land under acquisition in an extent of Rs. 3.24 cents covered by Sy.No. 99/2B, 99/2C and 100/1B was registered in the name of the ﬁrst claimant, second respondent herein. Since the appellant/second claimant claimed compensation under the agreement of sale dated 14.6.1986 executed by the ﬁrst claimant in respect of Ac.14.46 cents, out of which Ac.3.24 was acquired, the ﬁrst claimant raised objection stating that he did not receive any sale consideration under the agreement of sale dated 14.6.1986 from the second claimant and possession of the land was not delivered to him in pursuance of the said agreement of sale. As such, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Sections 31(2) of the LA Act. To prove the rival claims, Deputy Tahsildar was examined on behalf of the Referring Oﬃcer/Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and marked Ex.A.1-statement of the ﬁrst claimant recorded under Section 9 of the LA Act by the Dy. Collector. On behalf of the second claimant, he himself was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. However, it is on record that ﬁrst claimant remained ex party. The Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, concluded that the entire land under acquisition was registered in the name of the ﬁrst claimant and he was in possession of the land since 27.7.1959. Whereas, the second claimant produced agreement of sale dated 14.6.1986 stated to have been executed by the ﬁrst claimant in his favour, which is admitted by the ﬁrst claimant, but denied delivery of possession and payment of consideration pursuant to the said agreement of sale. Observing so, the Reference Court held that the second claimant/appellant failed to prove his title, ownership or interest over the land under acquisition and answered the reference in favour of the first claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the second claimant preferred the present appeal. Though the appeal is pending since 1995, the appellant/second claimant has not taken necessary steps to serve the second respondent/first claimant. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/second claimant. There is no dispute with regard to ﬁxation of the market value by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. Even with regard to the right of the appellant/second claimant to receive the compensation, it is proved on record that the appellant/second claimant failed to prove his title over the land under acquisition inasmuch as he was not delivered possession of the land and no sale consideration was paid to the ﬁrst claimant. We do not see any reasonable ground to interfere with the well considered and established ﬁndings of the Reference Court. Further, there is no stay in the appeal and it is reported that the ﬁrst claimant had withdrawn the entire compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the finding of the reference Court. For the foregoing discussion, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY -------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY DATED 9T H MARCH, 2010. Msnr.