University not entitled to appeal land compensation. Appeal dismissed.

The court held that the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, as the beneficiary of the land acquisition, was not entitled to prefer an appeal against the compensation fixed by the lower court. The University could not seek leave to appeal as it was not a "person interested" under the Land Acquisition Act. The petition for transposition of the Special Tahsildar as the second appellant was dismissed due to a significant delay. Since the appeal was non-maintainable, the court did not address the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University is entitled to prefer an appeal against the compensation fixed by the court.
2. Whether the University could seek leave of the appellate court to prefer an appeal.
3. Whether the petition for transposition of the Special Tahsildar as the second appellant could be granted.
4. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court was at the proper market rate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the University to Prefer an Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, for whose benefit the land was acquired, could prefer an appeal against the compensation fixed by the court. It was conceded that the University could not prefer an appeal as of right since it was not a party to the proceedings in the lower court. The court held that the University, as the beneficiary of the land acquisition, was not entitled to prefer an appeal as a matter of right.

2. Seeking Leave to Appeal:
The court examined whether the University could seek leave to appeal. The University argued that it was aggrieved by the high compensation rate as it had to pay the compensation from its funds. The court analyzed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and concluded that the person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not a "person interested" and cannot seek a reference under Section 18 or prefer an appeal. The court emphasized that the Land Acquisition Act specifically excludes such persons from being parties to the proceedings and limits their participation to adducing evidence. Therefore, the University could not seek leave to appeal, and the ex parte leave granted to it was unsustainable.

3. Petition for Transposition:
The Special Tahsildar, who was the Land Acquisition Officer, filed a petition for transposition as the second appellant. The court considered whether this petition could be granted. It noted that the petition was filed with gross negligence, as it was delayed by 13 months after the decision in a similar case. The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and inaccurate. Consequently, the petition for transposition was dismissed.

4. Quantum of Compensation:
Since the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability and the petition for transposition was denied, the court did not address the merits of the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University had no locus standi to prefer an appeal against the compensation fixed by the lower court. The ex parte leave granted to the University was revoked, and the appeal was dismissed. The petition for transposition of the Special Tahsildar as the second appellant was also dismissed due to gross negligence. The court did not consider the merits of the compensation amount.

---