Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dismissed as the appellant failed to appear after notice due to the low value of the appeal (Rs.89-30) and lack of legal representation.
Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO
A.S. NO.105/2001
DT. 19–10-2011
Between:
1. B. Nookalamma and others … Appellants/ 2nd & 6th claimants
And
1. Balji Simhachalam and others … Respondents
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO
A.S. NO.105/2001
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY)
This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalle dt. 29-9-1995 passed in OP No.13/1985, whereby reference made under Sec.30 of the Act was answered against the appellants.
Initially, aggrieved by the impugned award and decree, the appellants filed CRP No.4582/1999. When it was pointed out by the Court that how the revision is maintainable, the appellants filed CMP No.5387/2000 to convert the revision into appeal, and the petition was ordered on 11-4-2000.
The value of the appeal is Rs.89-30.
In view of the death of the learned counsel, who filed the appeal, this court issued notice to the appellant on 20-6-2011. Since notice sent pursuant to the order dt. 20-6-2011 was not yet returned; this court again ordered notice to the appellant to be sent through the Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam. Though notice was served on the appellant, she has not put in appearance or engage an advocate to prosecute the matter, probably she might think that her visiting to Hyderabad and engaging a counsel will be of no use since the value of the appeal is Rs.89-30.
In view of the same, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J
__________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J
Dt. 19–10-2011 KMR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Nookalamma and others
Balji Simhachalam and others
A.GOPAL REDDY
K.S.APPA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
