(1.)The office report and also the affidavit of dasti service would prove that Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and Respondents 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under these circumstances, the service in the Special Leave Petition is complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they appear in person.
(2.)Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
(3.)The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of acre (sic) 33. 09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After determination of compensation, since the appellants claimed l/4th share therein and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a reference under Section 30 and it is now pending decision therein. The title of the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries in the record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove it by filing copies of family holdings, Khasra Pahnin and Pahani Patrikas for the year 1954-55 and Certified Copy of Pahani from MRO, Hasanparthy of S. Nos. 22/a, 48, 55, 56, 57/c, 58/b, 58/c for the years 1959-60 to 1969-70 and other documents. The documents were sought to be produced by an application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13, Rule 12 (sic) of Civil Procedure Code. These documents are public documents. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the same. On revision, the High court dismissed the CRP No. 2805 of 1992 by order dated 5/07/1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.