Abatement in connected appeals and land valuation must rest on reliable market evidence, not unsuitable small-sale instances.

In connected cross-appeals arising from the same award, non-substitution of a deceased respondent did not abate the government appeal in toto where the legal representatives were already on record in the companion matter, were heard on merits, and the plea of abatement was knowingly abandoned. The court also upheld the land acquisition valuation, holding that compensation must rest on reliable market evidence such as location, building potential, and the claimants' own recent purchase price, rather than on isolated small-sale instances that are not a safe basis for valuing a much larger acquired tract. The High Court's compensation rate was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the government appeal before the High Court had abated in toto on the death of one respondent and the omission to bring his legal representatives on record; (ii) Whether the High Court erred in fixing compensation at Rs. 4 per square yard instead of Rs. 12 per square yard.

Issue (i): Whether the government appeal before the High Court had abated in toto on the death of one respondent and the omission to bring his legal representatives on record.

Analysis: Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure requires substitution of legal representatives when a party dies, but the effect of non-substitution depends upon whether the right to sue survives against the remaining parties and whether the plea of abatement is duly pressed. In the setting of connected cross-appeals arising from the same award, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent were already on record and were fully heard in the companion appeal. Their conduct showed a deliberate choice to contest the matter on merits rather than insist upon abatement. The technical objection, therefore, was treated as having been knowingly abandoned, and the appeal could not be defeated on that ground.

Conclusion: The plea that the government appeal had abated was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court erred in fixing compensation at Rs. 4 per square yard instead of Rs. 12 per square yard.

Analysis: The High Court examined all relevant factors bearing on market value, including the land's location within municipal limits, its potential as a building site, and the recent purchase price paid by the claimants themselves. It rejected the small and non-genuine sale instances relied upon by the appellants and declined to treat the two registered sale deeds relating to very small parcels as a safe basis for valuing a much larger acquired extent. The evidence showed that the land had been bought shortly before acquisition at a substantially lower rate and had not been improved in the meantime. The valuation fixed by the High Court was thus based on relevant material and did not suffer from error warranting interference.

Conclusion: The compensation fixed at Rs. 4 per square yard was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the procedural objection and the merits of valuation, and the High Court's decision was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cross-appeals arising from the same decree or award, where the legal representatives of a deceased party are already before the court in the connected appeal and the plea of abatement is knowingly abandoned, the appeal will not fail for want of formal substitution in the other appeal; compensation in land acquisition must be determined on reliable evidence of market value, not on isolated or unsuitable small-sale instances.

---