1979 Supreme(SC) 221
P.N.SHINGHAL, D.A.DESAI
N. Jayaram Reddi – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool – Respondent
Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.SUBBA RAO, T.V.S.N.Chari
Judgement Key Points
- The appeal arises from a land acquisition matter where the State acquired approximately 2 acres 79 cents of land in Kurnool town for a bus depot, with possession taken on May 25, 1962. Compensation was initially fixed at Rs. 2 per square yard plus solatium and interest, but the Subordinate Judge enhanced it to Rs. 12 per square yard. [1000182780001][1000182780002]
- Cross-appeals were filed: claimants' appeal (AS 296/1964) for further enhancement and government appeal (AS 180/1964) for reduction. One claimant, Y. Prabhakar Reddy (respondent No. 2 in government appeal, co-appellant in claimants' appeal), died on April 3, 1964. [1000182780002] (!)
- Legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased were brought on record in the claimants' appeal on July 14, 1964, before the 90-day limit, preventing abatement of that appeal. No such substitution occurred in the government appeal. [1000182780002][1000182780007] (!)
- The High Court heard both appeals together without objection to abatement, dismissed the claimants' appeal, and allowed the government appeal, reducing compensation to Rs. 4 per square yard plus solatium and interest. [1000182780002] (!)
- Argument that government appeal abated wholly against all respondents due to non-substitution of LRs within 90 days under Order XXII Rule 4(1) CPC, as right to sue does not survive against surviving respondents alone. However, abatement against deceased does not automatically dismiss the entire appeal; survival of right to sue requires judicial determination. [1000182780003] (!)
- A decree against a deceased person is a nullity only insofar as it affects the LRs without hearing them, but LRs may waive this technicality and abide by the decree. [1000182780004][1000182780005]
- LRs were aware of death and non-substitution in government appeal (having been substituted in claimants' appeal), yet did not object during five years of pendency or at hearing; instead, argued merits through counsel, abandoning abatement plea willfully. Objection raised post-judgment in certificate petition cannot revive it. [1000182780006][1000182780007][1000182780008][1000182780009][1000182780013] (!)
- In cross-appeals from the same decree, parties in rival positions; substitution of LRs in one (claimants' appeal) where deceased was appellant satisfies natural justice, as they had opportunity to defend/advance case fully, even without formal substitution as respondents in the other (government appeal). No abatement occurs. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Principles: Order XXII Rules 3/4 ensure hearing opportunity for those affected; adequate representation of estate (even if some LRs missed) or presence in another capacity prevents abatement. Cross-appeals interdependent like appeal/cross-objections; form over substance avoided. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- On merits, High Court properly considered purchase price (Rs. 2/sq yd eight months prior), lack of improvements, rejected suspicious sale agreements, discounted small-plot sales (3-5 cents); Rs. 4/sq yd reasonable given location/potential. No interference needed. [1000182780014][1000182780015] (!)
- Appeal dismissed, no costs. [1000182780016] (!) (!)
Judgment
SHINGHAL, J.:- This appeal is by a certificate of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the valuation of the subject matter and is directed against its judgment dated February 4, 1969.
2. The State Government acquired 2 acres and 79 cents of the land of the appellants in Kurnool town for locating a bus depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation. It was arable land within the municipal limits of the town, with two trees and an old compound wall. Its possession was taken by the State Government on May 25, 1962. The market value of the land was fixed at Rs. 27,042.53 at the rate of Rs. 2 per square yard. The compound wall and the trees were valued at Rs. 930 and after allowing a solatium of 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent per annum, the total compensation was worked out to Rs. 33,069.12. N. Jayarama Reddy, Y. Prabhakar Reddy and C. Manikya Reddy, who were the three owners of the land, accepted that compensation under protest and applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After recording evidence and inspecting the site, the Subordinate Judge held that the claimants were entitled to payment at the rate of Rs. 12 per square yard for t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
