P SUDERSHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 28,1992

PINGILI SUDERSHAN REDDY, L.R.PINGFLI VIJAYANAND REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Even to- day no one is present for the respondent herein.
(2.)The Legal Representative of the Claimant No. 13 in O.P. No. 108 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal is the revision petitioner. The said Petition was registered on reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of the said O.P., Claimant No.13 died. Then the revision petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 8 of 1990 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in filing the LA., praying for setting aside the abatement. The lower Court dismissed the said application by observing that sufficient reasons were not given for the delay in filing the application praying for setting aside the abatement. The said order is assailed in this revision petition.
(3.)Whenever a dispute in regard to title is raised regarding the land acquired, a duty is cast upon the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. In such cases even if one of the claimants dies, there will not be any abatement, for until the matter is decided by the Civil Court in regard to the title of the land acquired, there is no possibility of disbursing the amount deposited towards the compensation for the land acquired. Further it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to move the Court for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased claimant, if the death takes place during the pendency of the O.P., registered under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even if the Land Acquisition Officer has not initiated in the matter, it is open to the legal representatives of the claimant to move the Court to permit them to come on record. Hence, in such cases, the question of delay does not arise, for that reason there is no need for the legal representatives of the claimant to file a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay, or to file a petition praying for setting aside the abatement as there will not be any abatement in such cases. Hence, in the circumstances, it is just and proper to order to the lower Court to register the LA. filed praying for permitting the petitioner herein to come on record as the legal representative of claimant No.13 and the same has to be disposed of on merits after giving notice on the said I.A., to the other claimants and the respondent herein. In the said I. A.. It is necessary to consider whether revision petitioner above is L.R. of Claimant No.13 or whether he left any other L.Rs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.