(1.) This appeal is filed by respondents no. 1 to 5 of Land Acquisition Case No. 77 of 1989 against the Judgment and Award dated 14/08/2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa in the said case.
(2.) It is seen from the records that the appeal has been shown as dismissed as against Respondents no. 3, 4 and 7 on the ground that they were not served and no steps were taken to serve them within the time fixed. However, it is noticed that Respondents no. 3 and 4 are none else than Respondents no. 2(1) and 2(2) who are duly served. It is further seen that Respondent no. 7 is respondent no. 2(6) who has also been duly served. It is, therefore, clear that the appeal has been wrongly shown as dismissed as against Respondents no. 3, 4 and 7. It is seen that Respondent no. 2(7) is unmarried daughter of deceased Respondent no. 2 who could not be served and the appeal has been dismissed as against her. However, she is from the set of the claimants who are duly represented by the learned Advocate Mr. C. Mascarenhas and therefore her interest is protected by the said set of claimants.
(3.) The parties shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case No. 77 of 1989. The appellants no. 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 2 numbered as respondents no. 2(a) and 2(b) in the said Land Acquisition case.