V RADHA KRISHNA Vs. R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal came up for hearing neither the appellants counsel nor the respondent's .counsel have drawn our attention to the fact that by order Dt. 23-9-1991 the appeal has been dismissed for default so far as respondents No. 3,6 and 7 are concerned. So, we heard the arguments at length and disposed of the appeal on 23-8-1993 by allowing the appeal in part and reducing the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Suryapet from Rs. 100/- per square yard to Rs. 62/- per square yard.

(2.) Subsequent to the disposal of the appeal, two Review C.M.Ps. Nos. 13541/93 and 13542/93 have been filed by the respondents-claimants other than claimant No.9 bringing to our notice that the appeal was dismissed for default against the respondents No. 3,6 and 7 by court order dt. 23-9-1991 and consequently the order of the learned Subordinate Judge became final so far as respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7 are concerned, and hence the appeal cannot be allowed so far as the other respondents are concerned. It is seen from the record that the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is for a total extent of Ac. 2-15 guntas and the compensation for the entire extent was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently enhanced by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) It is held in Sheodari Singh vs. Daryao Kunwar (AIR 1966 SC, 1332) that when two suits having common issues are tried and two appeals are filed therefrom and if one of them is dismissed on the ground of limitation or default in printing the decision of the appellate court operates as res judicata and the appeal must be deemed to have been heard and finally decided in the matter.