JUDGMENT : A.S. No.1453 of 2000 is filed by the appellant – Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, ONGC, Rajahmundry, against order dated 31-01-2000 in LA OP No.22 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Respondent No.2 Kandirilli Brahmayya – claimant filed Cross-Objections (SR) No.24553 of 2004. 2. On the requisition of the O.N.G.C., Krishna Godavari Project, Rajahmundry, to acquire an extent of Acs.32.27 cents of land for construction of a Base Complex, Administration and Technical Offices etc., in Krishna Godavari Project, O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry, the appellant initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘ the Act’) to acquire an extent of Acs.32.27 cents of land covered by survey Nos.483/1, 484/1, 485/1 and 488/1 situated at Kavalagoyya Village of Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, and issued draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the A.P. Gazette on 11-06-1990. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 05-07-1990. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.1 of 1991 on 30-11-1991 by fixing the market value for the acquired land at Rs.40,000/- per acre. Some of the claimants were dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the award under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation and accordingly all the claims were taken up in LA OP Nos.70 to 74 of 1992. Insofar as the subject matter of this appeal is concerned, the acquired land is an extent of Acs.2.10 cents in survey No.483/1C and Ac.0.33 cents in Survey No.483/1E, which comes to a total extent of Acs.2.43 cents. At the time of the award enquiry, respondent No.2, who is the original owner of the said land, attended before the Land Acquisition Officer on behalf of respondent No.1 – NGO’s Association, Town Unit, Rajahmundry (for short ‘Association’) and stated that he sold the said land to the Association and that the compensation amount may be paid to the members of the Association. As respondent No.2 or the Association have not filed any document to show their ownership over the said land, the Land Acquisition Officer ordered that the amount of compensation awarded to the land in question, be deposited in the Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P No.22 of 1992. Later, the Association reported no objection to pay the compensation to respondent No.2. Accordingly, the amount of compensation deposited into the Court with regard to the land in question, was paid to respondent No.2, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Respondent No.1 – Association filed claim statement before the reference Court on 23-04-1993, contending that the land in question was suitable for house sites and fetches at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre and that there is no dispute with regard to title over the said land between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to determine the market value at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/-. Subsequently, respondent No.2 added as per orders dated 13-12-1993 and filed application in I.A. No.854 of 1994 to convert the reference made under Section 31(2) of the Act into that of Section 18 of the Act. The said I.A. was allowed by an order dated 02-02-1995 converting the reference made under Section 31(2) into that of under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed claim statement contending that he is the absolute owner of the land in question and that he appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of award enquiry and that without mentioning his name, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation amount in to the Court, mentioning the name of the Association and that thereafter he filed implead application and the same was allowed and he was added as party. He further contended that the Court after perusing the title deeds filed by him and also the award enquiry, allowed him to withdraw the compensation amount and on his application to convert the reference to that of reference under Section 18 of the Act, the reference Court converted the reference to that of reference under Section 18 of the Act and that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and prayed for determining the market value at the rate Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. The learned reference Court clubbed all the OPs., viz., OP Nos.22, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 of 1992 and recorded evidence in O.P. No.72 of 1992. On behalf of the claimants in all OPs., PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.A-1 to 37 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked as third party documents. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence available on record, the reference Court by its common order dated 31-01-2000 allowed the OPs enhancing the market value from Rs.40,000/- per acre to 87,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer preferred A.S. Nos.1452, 1433, 1616, 1434 and 1908 of 2000 in OP Nos.74, 73, 70, 71 and 72 of 1992 and the claimants therein also filed Cross Objections. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24-02-2003, while dismissing the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, allowed the Cross Objections of the claimants enhancing the compensation from Rs.87,000/- to Rs.1,43,000/- per acre. Thus, the market value, as fixed by this Court at Rs.1,43,000/- per acre in the aforesaid A.S. No.1452 of 2000 and batch is not in dispute. The Land Acquisition Officer preferred the present appeal against the order in O.P. No.22 of 1992, contending that the reference made to the Civil Court with regard to the award passed for the land in question, is time barred, as such the same is not maintainable, as the award was passed in the year 1991 and the respondent No.2 filed application to convert the reference under Section 18 of the Act in the year 1995. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record+. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the award was passed in the year 1991 and that the compensation was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 31(2) of the Act in the year 1991 itself and that conversion of reference under Section 31(2) of the Act to that of under Section 18 of the Act was made in the year 1995. Therefore, the reference under Section 18 of the Act is time barred and is not maintainable. 5. Therefore, the reference under Section 18 of the Act is time barred and is not maintainable. 5. A perusal of the award No.1 of 1991 dated 30-11-1991 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, ONGC, Rajahmundry, discloses that an extent of Acs.32.37 cents in Survey Nos.483/1, 484/1, 485/1 and 488/1 situated in Kavalgoyya village of Rajahmundry rural Mandal was required for the acquisition for construction of Base Complex, Administration and Technical Offices, storage sheds, workshops etc., of K.G. Project, O.N.G.C., Rahjahmundry and after issuance of the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officers conducted enquiry and passed an award and as per the said award in respect of the land in question i.e. an extent of Acs.2.10 cents of land in Survey No.483/1E and an extent of Ac.0.33 cents of land in Survey No.483/1C, N.G.O.’s Association, Rajahmundry, the 1st respondent herein, claimed compensation. The Cross-objector Kadirilli Brahmaiah, 2nd respondent herein, did not participate in the enquiry proceedings in his individual capacity, claiming exclusive ownership over the said land, on the other hand, he attended the award enquiry on behalf of the Association and stated that the compensation may be paid to the members of the N.G.O.’s Association. He did not file any documentary evidence regarding sale of the land to the Association and the Association also did not file any documentary evidence regarding purchase of the said land from respondent No.2. Therefore, the entire compensation amount for the said land was ordered to be deposited in the Court and the reference was made with regard to claim of the compensation under Section 31(2) of the Act. 6. With regard to the amount so deposited into the Court to which the reference under Section 31 (2) was made, there was no obligation either by the Association or by the 2nd respondent either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the reference Court to decide the dispute as to their entitlement to receive the compensation. It is also pertinent to note that neither of the parties i.e. the Association or the 2nd respondent made any application before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act with regard to the appropriate fixation of the compensation. 7. It is also pertinent to note that neither of the parties i.e. the Association or the 2nd respondent made any application before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act with regard to the appropriate fixation of the compensation. 7. The record further discloses that the claimants in O.P. Nos.70/92, 71/92, 72/92, 73/92 and 74/92 i.e. five claimants in the O.Ps., viz., G. Kameswara Rao, U. Gandhi and S. Krishnam Raju, J.V. Venkata Rao, J. Surya Rao and A. Satheyya alone filed applications under Section 18 of the Act on 30-12-1991. After receiving the amount under protest and within two months of the issuance of the notice under Section 12 (1) of the Act, which was issued on 11-12-1991, the claimants in the above said OPs have filed the applications on 30-12-1991 before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation. No such application for reference has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, before the Land Acquisition Officer. After filing the reference applications on 30-12-1991 by the other claimants, the references were numbered as O.P. Nos.70 to 74 of 1992 and insofar as the entitlement of the compensation either by respondent No.2 or by Association the said reference under Section 31 of the Act was numbered as O.P. No. 22 of 1992. 8. The record further discloses that the 1st respondent filed claim statement on 24-03-1993 claiming enhancement of the compensation to Rs.3,50,000/- per acre, contending that the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement of sale with it and that if the acquisition proceedings are initiated, the 2nd respondent would have got the price at the rate that the Association offered to purchase the said land. It is stated that the version of the Land Acquisition Officer stating that nobody filed any documentary evidence to prove their title is not correct and that he ought to have referred the matter under Section 18 of the Act instead of depositing the amounts under Section 31(2) of the Act. It is stated that the version of the Land Acquisition Officer stating that nobody filed any documentary evidence to prove their title is not correct and that he ought to have referred the matter under Section 18 of the Act instead of depositing the amounts under Section 31(2) of the Act. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent protested for the low compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also submitted his written objection at the time of the enquiry and that in view of the subsisting agreement of sale, the Association is entitled to ask for enhancement of the compensation, though the matter was referred under Section 31 (2) of the Act. 9. The 2nd respondent filed implead petition before the reference Court as the Land Acquisition Officer without mentioning his name, deposited the compensation into the Court. After impleadment, he filed the title deeds into the Court and filed another application to allow him to withdraw the compensation amount and to convert the reference into Section 18 of the Act. The said application was also allowed by the reference Court on 02-02-1995. Accordingly, 2nd respondent received the compensation without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed claim statement before the reference Court on 19-06-1995 contending that the compensation amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and to determine the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre. Thus, the claim statement for the first time made by the 2nd respondent was only on 19-06-1995 claiming more compensation. 10. Thus, the material available on record and according to the claim statements of the 2nd respondent as well as the Association, the 2nd respondent appeared before the award enquiry on behalf of the Association only. Though the Association stated that the 2nd respondent filed an application for reference but according to the claim statement made by the 2nd respondent no such application has been filed and record also discloses that no application has been filed seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Though the Association stated that the 2nd respondent filed an application for reference but according to the claim statement made by the 2nd respondent no such application has been filed and record also discloses that no application has been filed seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent for the first time filed an application for conversion of the reference made under Section 31 (2) of the Act into Section 18 of the Act in 1995 vide I.A. No.854 of 1994 which was ordered converting the reference into Section 18 of the Act on 02-02-1995. In fact, the aforesaid facts are clear from the judgment of the Reference Court and the issue before the Reference Court was only with regard to the entitlement of the respective parties to receive the compensation for the acquired land of Acs.2.33 cents and the subsequent conversion of the proceedings under Section 30 into Section 18 of the Act. 11. The relevant provisions of the Act i.e. Sections 18, 30 and 31 are as follows: “18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made-(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. 30. Dispute as to apportionment. -When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 31. 30. Dispute as to apportionment. -When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court. -(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector may, with the sanction of the [appropriate Government] instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.” 12. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.” 12. Under Section 18 of the Act, unless the person interested, who has not accepted the award, makes a written application to the Court requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court whether the objection be to the measurement of the land, amount of the compensation pursuant to whom it is payable, apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award if such person was present or represented before the Collector at the time when the award was made and in other case, within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) or within six months from the date of Collector’s award, which period shall first expired. 13. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent though participated in the award proceedings, even assuming that no notice was received under Section 12(2) of the LA Act, did not file any application within six months from the date of the award. In fact, the award was passed on 30-11-1991. Six months period expired by 30-05-1992. Neither the Association nor the 2nd respondent has made any written application as required under Section 18(2) of the Act. As there was dispute with regard to entitlement of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited the compensation amount into the Court to which the reference would be submitted. Admittedly, the Court in which the deposit was made is the concerned Court before whom the references were made by the other claimants, seeking enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, is it not a reference under Section 31(2) but it is only a deposit under Section 31(2) of the Act. Therefore, the observation of the reference Court that the reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act, is incorrect. But, in fact, the contention of the claimants i.e. the Association and the 2nd respondent that there was a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act is incorrect. Therefore, the observation of the reference Court that the reference was made under Section 31(2) of the Act, is incorrect. But, in fact, the contention of the claimants i.e. the Association and the 2nd respondent that there was a reference under Section 31(2) of the Act is incorrect. Thus, it is clear from the award proceedings that the claimants in other OPs i.e. OP Nos.70 to 74 of 92 filed written applications under Section 18 of the Act on 30-12-1991 pursuant to the award dated 30-11-1991 i.e. within a period of one month, whereas the Association and the 2nd respondent did not make any such application. But, only after expiry of the statutory period, the Association filed claim statement 1993 and 2nd respondent filed the claim statement on 19-06-1995. 14. Under Section 30 of the Act, when the amount of the compensation has been settled under Section 11 of the Act, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same, as to the person to whom the same is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. Under this Section, discretion is vested with the Collector to refer the matter, with regard to entitlement of the compensation by the persons, who are claiming the compensation. Whereas under Section 18 of the Act, it is mandatory for the Referring Officer to refer the written application requiring to refer the matter to the Court, if it is made within the statutory period. 15. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the reference Court is entitled to convert the reference made under Section 31 (2) of the Act into that of a reference under Section 18 of the Act. A further issue also arises as to whether without there being any reference either under Section 30 or any written application made within the statutory period under Section 18 of the Act, the reference Court is entitled to refer the deposit of the compensation made under Section 31(2) into that of a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 16. A further issue also arises as to whether without there being any reference either under Section 30 or any written application made within the statutory period under Section 18 of the Act, the reference Court is entitled to refer the deposit of the compensation made under Section 31(2) into that of a reference under Section 18 of the Act. 16. The issue whether the reference made under Section 30 of the Act as a reference under Section 18 of the Act by way of amendment is justified and whether the land holders whose lands were also acquired under the same notification are entitled to claim enhancement of compensation for their lands by impleading themselves as claimants in another reference. In the absence of any reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act in the respective petitions a Division Bench of this Court in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DEPUTY COLLECTOR, POCHAMPAD v. GONDA CHINNA RAJANNA 1999 (3) ALD 481 (DB) held that treating the reference under Section 30/31 (2) of the Act as a reference under Section 18 of the At by way of amendment is illegal and the same is not sustainable. With regard to the other issue also it was held that the holders whose lands also acquired under the same notification are not entitled to be impleaded as parties to the OPs filed by the other claimants and such impleadment of the claimants who have not made any written applications under Section 18 of the Act is illegal. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in PRAYAG UPNIVESH AWAS EVAM NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIITED v. ALLAHABAD VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND ANOTEHR 2003 (5) supreme Court Cases 561 held in paragraph Nos.7, 9 & 11 as follows: “7. It is well established that the reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under Section 18 or 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and that Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to it. The reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. of State, AIR 1930 PC 84. The reference Court cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. This question was considered by various judicial authorities and one of the earliest decisions reported on this point is Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur v. Secy. of State, AIR 1930 PC 84. This was a case where the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the application filed by the claimant, he raised objection only regarding the valuation of the land. The claimant did not dispute the measurements of the land given in the award. Before the reference Court, the claimant raised objection regarding the measurements of the land and sought for fresh measurements. This was refused and the claimant applied to the High Court for revision of this order, but without success. Again, in the appeal, the claimed raised the same objection regarding measurements and the High Court rejected it. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thus : "Their Lordships have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Courts under this Act is a special one and is strictly limited by the terms of these sections. It only arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award, and it is confined to a consideration of that objection. Once therefore it is ascertained that the only objection taken is to the amount of compensation, that alone is the "matter" referred, and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it." 9.In K. Kankarathanamma and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1964) 6 SCR 294 , the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 for the apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the various claimants. Six of the appellants did not accept the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and made application to him for referring the matter for determination by the Court, but no reference was made by him pursuant to this application. When the matter came up before the Court, it proceeded on the footing that the reference made to it was not merely limited to the apportionment of compensation but also with respect to the amount of compensation. No objection, however, was raised by the State before the reference Court regarding the absence of reference. When the matter came up before the High Court, the Govt. Pleader raised this objection. No objection, however, was raised by the State before the reference Court regarding the absence of reference. When the matter came up before the High Court, the Govt. Pleader raised this objection. Though the High Court allowed the plea to be raised before it, but ultimately it negatived the plea. The appellants contended before the High Court that pursuant to the failure of the State to raise the plea before the Subordinate Judge as to the absence of a reference, the State must be deemed to have waived the point. Rejecting this contention, this Court held : ". . . . . . . .the matter goes to the Court only upon a reference made by the Collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Section 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the Court to consideration of the contentions of the persons affected by the objection. These provisions thus leave no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer has made a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but that reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the various claimants. Such a reference would certainly not invest the Court with the jurisdiction to consider a matter not directly connected with it. This is really not a mere technicality for as pointed out by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and others v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor wherever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with, the jurisdiction does not arise. This was, therefore, a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction and the failure of the State to object to the proceedings before the Court on the ground of an absence of reference in so far as the determination of compensation was concerned cannot amount to waiver or acquiescence. Indeed, when there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction, the defect cannot be waived nor can be cured by acquiescence." 11. Indeed, when there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction, the defect cannot be waived nor can be cured by acquiescence." 11. In the instant case, there was no reference by the SLAO under Section 18 of the Act and the appellant-Samiti was not before the SLAO. Even the application allegedly filed on 12-10-1987 has rightly been characterized as suspicious as no mention has been made by the SLAO in the reference letter dated 12-10-1987. In the absence of a proper reference, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the question of enhancement of compensation. When such an objection was not referred to the Court, there was complete lack of jurisdiction. In our view, the decision of the High Court is correct and requires no interference. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.” 18. It is clear from the aforesaid judgments that the scope and ambit of Section 18 of the Act is different and distinct from that of the Section 30 of the Act. The provisions of Section 18 are mandatory on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court. Whereas, under Section 30 of the Act, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference only with regard to apportionment of the compensation among the various claimants. In fact, in the instant case, there was no reference under Section 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. Only the compensation payable to the claimant in view of the dispute made by the agreement holder of the land, the same was deposited before the Court to which the reference would be made. In fact, the 2nd respondent, represented on behalf of the Association stating that the agreement holder i.e. the Association is entitled to receive the compensation. As there was dispute with regard to ownership of the land and the entitlement of the compensation, the compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court. No application was filed either by the Association or by the original owner to refer the matter under Section 18 of the LA Act seeking enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the reference Court ought not to have converted the reference made under Section 30 / 31(2) of the Act into that of reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the reference Court ought not to have converted the reference made under Section 30 / 31(2) of the Act into that of reference under Section 18 of the Act. The specific ground taken in the appeal that the said issue of enhancing the compensation without there being any application under Section 18 of the Act, relates to the question of jurisdiction and in fact the contentions as raised by the respondents herein are also negatived in the aforesaid judgments. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 31-01-2000 in LA OP No.22 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and the Cross-Objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. It is stated that this Court by order dated 22-06-2000 granted interim stay on condition of the appellant depositing half of the decreetal amount and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. If that be so, the appellant is always entitled to recover the same.