P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Tahsildar, Kovvur - the Land acquisition Officer, had preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate judge, Kovvur made in O. P. No. 59/84 dated 12-10-1992. ( 2 ) THE Appeal was dismissed for default as against respondents 3, 4 6, 10, 11 and 12. It may also be noticed that O. P. No. 59/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur was on a reference under Section 18 of the Act. ( 3 ) AN extent of Acs. 13-84 cents in r. S. No. 38/1a in Tadimalla village was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Scheduled Castes and Backward classes. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 8-9-1982 and possession of the land was taken on 7-11-1982 and award No. 2/84 was made on 7-2-1984. The compensation of the land acquired was fixed @ Rs. 10,000. 00 per acre and the respondents/claimants had claimed compensation @ Rs. 30,000. 00 per acre. On behalf of the respondents/claimants, P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 were examined and Ex. A-1 was marked. On behalf of the Government, r. W. 1 was examined and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. The learned Subordinate judge, Kovvur, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence i. e. , P. W. 1 to p. W. 3, R. W. 1, Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-1 to B-3, ultimately had arrived at the conclusion that the fixation of compensation @ Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre for ail the lands acquired under the reference would be just and reasonable. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant- tahsildar, Kovvur (Land Acquisition Officer) had preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) CLAIMANTS 1 and 2 filed a claim statement claiming compensation @ rs. 30,000/- per acre. 3rd claimant also filed a claim statement claiming similar compensation. 4th claimant filed a claim statement claiming compensation @ rs. 25/- per sq. yard, or in the alternative, rs. 50,000/- per acre. Claimants 6 to 12 filed a memo adopting the claim statements filed by claimants 1 and 2. 30,000/- per acre. 3rd claimant also filed a claim statement claiming similar compensation. 4th claimant filed a claim statement claiming compensation @ rs. 25/- per sq. yard, or in the alternative, rs. 50,000/- per acre. Claimants 6 to 12 filed a memo adopting the claim statements filed by claimants 1 and 2. The learned subordinate Judge, Kovvur, at para 9 of the impugned order had framed the Point for consideration as hereunder:"the point for consideration is whether the compensation fixed by the Land acquisition Officer is reasonable?"though the claimants are different, the question involved in relation to the respondents/claimants is one and the same. ( 5 ) SRI Gopal Das, the learned government Pleader for Appeals had made the following submissions. The learned counsel contended that the reference court had totally erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 without any basis. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is for the respondents/claimants to adduce the relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired land is capable of fetching higher market value and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and inasmuch as the respondents/claimants had failed to prove the same, the enhancement of compensation is definitely unsustainable. The learned Counsel also had drawn our attention to the relevant discussion in the impugned order in this regard. While making submissions relating to the abatement of the appeal in view of the death of certain of the respondents, the learned Counsel would maintain that inasmuch as the claims of these respondents/claimants being distinct, there cannot be total abatement and hence as against the surviving respondents/ claimants, this court can definitely interfere provided this court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the reference court - the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, are unsustainable. ( 6 ) SRI Jagannadha Sharma, the learned government Pleader for Appeals, who was called upon by this court to assist the court as amicus curiae on the question of abatement, had made elaborate submissions and had explained the ratio in the decision Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta and also in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram. ( 6 ) SRI Jagannadha Sharma, the learned government Pleader for Appeals, who was called upon by this court to assist the court as amicus curiae on the question of abatement, had made elaborate submissions and had explained the ratio in the decision Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta and also in State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram. ( 7 ) PER contra, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel representing certain of the respondents had maintained that in view of the fact that the Appeal was dismissed for default as against respondents 3,4,6,10,11 and 12, inasmuch as the question involved is the same, the Appeal abates in toto and if contrary view is taken, it will result in delivering conflicting decisions relating to the same question. The learned Counsel also had taken us through the evidence of P. W. 1, p. W. 2, P. W. 3 and also had pointed out that though the learned Subordinate Judge had observed that Ex. A-1 sale deed cannot be relied upon, since it pertains to a small extent of land, it is definitely a comparable sale. The learned Counsel also submitted that even otherwise, the learned Subordinate Judge, kovvur had recorded convincing reasons at paras 18,19 and 20 of the impugned Order and hence the said findings deserve no disturbance at the hands of this court. ( 8 ) HEARD the Counsel at length and perused the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 3, r. W. 1, Ex. A-1 and also Exs. B-1 to B-3. ( 9 ) THE following Points arise for consideration in this Appeal: (1) Whether the finding enhancing the compensation for the land acquired from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre by the learned Subordinate judge, Kovvur, is liable to be disturbed in this Appeal? (2) Whether the Appeal abates in toto in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case? (3) To what relief? ( 10 ) POINT No. 1: As can be seen from the material available on record, it is no doubt true that claimants 1 and 2 filed a claim statement; the 3rd claimant filed another claim statement; the 5th claimant filed yet another claim statement and claimants 6 to 12 had adopted the claim statement of claimants 1 and 2 by filing a memo of adoption. Ex. Ex. A-1 is the registered sale deed dated 7-4-1982 executed in respect of ac. 0-06 cents of land for Rs. 3000. 00. Ex. B-1 is the statement of the 3rd claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation @ Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre. Ex. B-2 is the statement of the 1st claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation @ Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre. Ex. B-3 is the claim statement of 2nd claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation @ Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre. P. W. 1 - the third claimant, P. W. 2 - who had deposed about the sale of Ac. 0-06 cents of land in the year 1981 -1982, and P. W. 3 - the son of the 5th claimant, were examined. These witnesses had deposed in detail about the market value of the acquired land. R. W. 1 is the Land Acquisition Officer who had deposed that he acquired Acs. 13-84 cents in R. S. No. 3871a of Tadimalla village in 1984 for the purpose of providing house sites for Harijans and Backward Class people and there was no irrigation source for the said land and the land is abutting the village and it is fit for house sites. It is no doubt true that Ex. A-1 sale deed was executed just a few months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the present case and it is in relation to a small extent of land of Acs. 0-06 cents. It is also true that the learned subordinate Judge, Kovvur was to inclined to place reliance on Ex. A-1. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned subordinate Judge, Kovvur should have taken into consideration the value specified in Ex. A-1 at least as a guiding factor in fixing the compensation for the land acquired in question. Be that as it may, the evidence of p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 is available on record apart from the statements Exs. B-1 to B-3 recorded at the earliest point of time, during award enquiry. A-1 at least as a guiding factor in fixing the compensation for the land acquired in question. Be that as it may, the evidence of p. W. 1 to P. W. 3 is available on record apart from the statements Exs. B-1 to B-3 recorded at the earliest point of time, during award enquiry. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to note that the tadimalla is a developing village and though it cannot be considered to be urban property, taking this fact and certain other attendant factors into consideration, the learned subordinate Judge, Kovvur had arrived at the conclusion that fixation of compensation @ Rs. 20,000. 00 per acre for the lands acquired will be just and reasonable. We do not see any compelling reasons to deviate from the said finding or to disturb the said finding which had been recorded on appreciation of the evidence and also taking into consideration the attending circumstances. Hence the said finding is hereby affirmed. ( 12 ) POINT No. 2: Elaborate submissions were made relating to the partial abatement and total abatement of Appeal in view of the dismissal for default of the Appeal as against certain of the respondents/claimants. In the decision referred (2) supra, where certain lands belonging to two brothers L and N jointly was acquired for military purposes and on their refusal to accept the compensation offered by the Collector, the state Government referred the matter for inquiry to an arbitrator under Rule 10 of the punjab Land Acquisition (Defence of India) rules, 1943, the arbitrator passed a joint award granting higher compensation and also certain sum on account of income-tax. The State Government appealed against the award to High Court and during the pendency of the appeal, L died and as his legal representatives were not brought on record, the appeal abated against him. In the said decision, the question before the Apex court was whether the appeal also abated as against N, and in those circumstances, it was held:". . . . . . . . . THAT the appeal against N alone could not proceed. To get rid of the joint decree it was essential for the appellant state to implead both the joint decree- holders and in the absence of one the appeal was not properly constituted. . . . . . . . . THAT the appeal against N alone could not proceed. To get rid of the joint decree it was essential for the appellant state to implead both the joint decree- holders and in the absence of one the appeal was not properly constituted. The subject matter for which the compensation had been awarded was one and the same land and the assessment of compensation so far as l was concerned having become final, there could not be different assessments of compensation for the same parcel of land. The mere record of specific shares of L and N in the revenue records was no guarantee of their correctness and the appellate court would have to determine the share of N and that of L in the land in absence of L s legal representatives which was not permissible in law. "it was further held:"when Order 22 Rule 4 C. P. C. does not provide for the abatement of the appeals against the co-respondents of the deceased respondent there can be no question of abatement of appeals against them. The only question is whether the appeal can proceed against them. The provisions of order 1 Rule 9 C. P. C. also show that if the court can deal with the matter controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the appellant and the respondents other than the deceased respondent, it has to proceed with the appeal and decide it. It is only when it is not possible for the court to deal with such matters, that it will have to refuse to proceed further with the appeal and therefore dismiss it. The question whether a court can deal with such matters or not, will depend on the facts of each case and therefore no exhaustive statement can be made about the circumstances when this is possible or is not possible. It may, however, be stated that ordinarily the considerations which weigh with the court in deciding upon this question are whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased can be said to be properly constituted or can be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the court. The test to determine this has been described in diverse forms. The test to determine this has been described in diverse forms. Courts will not proceed with an appeal (a) when the success of the appeal may lead to the court s coming to a decision which will be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent and therefore which would lead to the court s passing a decree which will be contradictory to the decree which has become final with respect to the same subject matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent; (b) when the appellant could not have brought the action for the necessary reliefs against those respondents alone who are still before the court and (c) when the decree against the surviving respondents, if the appeal succeeds, will be ineffective, that is to say, it could to be successfully executed. "in the decision referred (1) supra, the Apex court having referred to the decision referred (2) supra, ultimately at para 34 held:"in the light of the above discussion, we hold: (1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners are found to have distinct, separate and independent rights of their own and for the purpose of convenience or otherwise, joint together in a single litigation to vindicate their rights, the decree passed by the court thereon is to be viewed in substance as the combination of several decrees in favour of one or the other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree. The same would be the position in the case of defendants or respondents having similar rights contesting the claims against them. (2) Whenever different and distinct claims of more than one are sought to be vindicated in one single proceedings, as the one now before us, under the Land Acquisition Act or in similar nature of proceedings and/or claims in assertion of individual rights of parties are clubbed, consolidated and dealt with together by the courts concerned and a single judgment or decree has been passed, it should be treated as mere combination of several decrees in favour of or against one or more of the parties and not as joint and inseparable decrees. (3) The mere fact that the claims or rights asserted or sought to be vindicated by more than one are similar or identical in nature or by joining together of more than one of such claimants of a particular nature, by itself would not be sufficient in law to treat them as joint claims, so as to render the judgment or decree passed thereon a joint and inseverable one. (4) The question as to whether in a given case the decree is joint and inseverable or joint and severable or separable has to be decided, for the purposes of abatement or dismissal of the entire appeal as not being properly and duly constituted or rendered incompetent for being further proceeded with, requires to be determined only with reference to the fact as to whether the judgment/decree passed in the proceedings vis-a-vis the remaining parties would suffer the view of contradictory or inconsistent decrees. For that reason, a decree can be said to be contradictory or inconsistent with another decree only when the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be mutually self-destructive and that the enforcement of one would negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other. "this controversial question need not detain us any longer, especially in the light of the fact that on merits we had arrived at a conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, on appreciation of the evidence, need not be disturbed in any way. ( 13 ) POINT No. 3: Viewed from any angle, the Appeal being devoid of merits, shall stand dismissed. But however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court makes no order as to costs.