- (1.) 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 the value of land, a solatium of 15 per cent and interest at 4 per cent. Both parties felt aggrieved against that order dated July 30, 1963. While Appeal No. AS 180 of 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Government appeal, was filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, Appeal No. AS 296 of 1964, hereinafter referred to as the claimants' 'appeal, was filed by the claimants. There were thus cross-appeals in the High Court against a common order of the Subordinate Judge. The memorandum of the Government appeal was filed on December, 7, 1963. I do not have the date of the claimants' appeal on the record, but it is not disputed that it was filed before April 3, 1964. While the two appeals were pending in the High Court,. Y. Prabhakar Reddy, one of the three claimants of the compensation for the acquired land, died on April 3, 1964. An application was made in the claimants' appeal to bring his legal representatives on the record, and the High Court passed an order on July, 14, 1964 (in C. M. P. No. 7284 of 1964) bringing appellants 4 to 9 on record as the legal representatives of Y. Prabhakar Reddy. It is admitted before me that was done before the abatement of that appeal. It seems that no application was made in the government appeal to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Y. Prabhakar Reddy on the record of that appeal. Both the appeals were, however, taken up for hearing together and were disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated February 4, 1969. The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal, but allowed the government appeal and reduced the price of the acquired land from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 4/- per square yard "with the usual solatium and interest at 4 per cent as allowed by the lower court." While the government felt satisfied with that judgment, the claimants applied for a certificate which was granted on the ground that the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the court of first instance was upwards of Rs. 20,000/- and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to this Court was also upwards of that amount and the decree appealed from did not affirm the decision of the lower court. On the strength of that certificate, the appellants have come up to this Court in appeal.
(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellants that as Y. Prabhakar Reddy, respondent No. 2 in the government appeal, died on April 3, 1964, and his legal representatives were not brought on the record within the period of 90 days provided by law, that appeal abated thereafter and stood dismissed automatically and could not be resurrected and heard by the High Court as a cross-appeal to the claimants' appeal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram (1962) 2 SCR 636: (AIR 1962 SC 89), Rameshwar Prasad v. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath (1964) 3 SCR 549: (AIR 1963 SC 1901), Ramagya Prasad Gupta v. Murli Prasad (1973) 1 SCR 63: (AIR 1972 SC 1181) and Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh (1975) 2 SCR 932: (AIR 1975 SC 733) to support his argument. In particular, he has placed reliance on Nathu Ram's case to fortify his argument that the specification of the shares or of the interest of the deceased Y. Prabhakar Reddy did not affect the nature of the decree and the capacity of the joint decree-holders to execute the entire decree or to resist the attempt of the other party to interfere with the joint right decreed in their favour. In particular, he has relied on that portion of that decision where it has been stated that as the subject-matter for which the compensation is to be calculated in such cases is one and the same there cannot be different assessments of the amounts of compensation for the same parcel of land So, as the appeal before the High Court was directed against the joint decree and the appellate court could not take a decision on the basis of the separate shares of the claimants, it has been argued that the whole of the government appeal should have been dismissed because of its abatement against the deceased respondent.;