1. Condemnee contends initially that each and every action taken in the special master proceeding is void because Georgia Power Cоmpany is not empowered to use that form of condemnation proсeeding. He contends that Code § 36-811 (when and how power companies may cоndemn) authorizes only those procedures of Chapters 36-2 to 36-6, and that Code Ann. § 36-602a (sрecial master as cumulative of other methods) refers only to use by govеrnmental bodies.
The power company and the Attorney General, who appeared as amicus curiae, contend that the 1967 amendment to
Code Ann.
§ 36-60lа (definition of condemning body) expresses the clearest legislative intent оn the subject. This
*822
amendment added to the definition the words "all other persons, firms and corporations possessing the right or power of eminent domain.”
Code Ann.
§ 36-603a, еnacted in 1957, empowers a "condemning body” to use the procedure the Chapter sets out. Chapter 36-8, conferring the power of eminent domain on power companies was enacted in 1897. While the legislature could also have amended §§ 36-811 and 36-602a in 1967, leaving absolutely no room for constructiоn, we believe the general intent to confer the use of the special master proceeding on private companies is clear, and аny apparent conflicts can be harmonized to effect this intent.
Cason v. Harn,
2. Condemnee also contends that since Chapter 36-6A contains no rules concerning the time and manner of filing defensive pleadings, the rules of the Civil Practicе Act govern; therefore, his answer, counterclaim and motions filed within thirty days of service were timely.
Code Ann. § 81A-181 provides: "This Title shall apply to all special statutоry proceedings except to the extent that specific rules of practice and procedure in conflict herewith are expressly prescribed by law.”
Condemnation is a special statutory procedure and Code Ann. § 36-605a provides that upon petition, the superior court shаll make an order requiring all persons concerned to appeаr before a special master, between 10 and 15 days from. service, to make known all matters material to their rights. The petition and order serve as all necessary process. The court may also order a continuance for good cause. Code Ann. §36-611a.
We believe this sets up a specific rule of practice and procedure, especially in view of the stated purpose of the chapter, i.e., "to provide a simpler and more effective method of condemnation” where there is a "necessity for a quick determination” or where, for several reasons, a judicial supervision is desirable.
'Code Ann.
§36-602a. It is well established that all legal issues relating to the condemnаtion may be raised and determined in the special master proceeding. If no exceptions are taken to the master’s find
*823
ings or no regular apрeal taken from the judgment based on his award, the only issue remaining is that of valuе.
Bowers v. Fulton County,
It seems clear that where there has been a final adjudication in a proceeding designed to be expeditious, a party may not later tender an аnswer to the petition under general rules of civil practice. The time for the filing of defensive pleadings (as opposed to their sufficiency) is governed by the duration of the special statutory procedure.
Here the сondemnee appeared at the hearing and raised only the question of compensation. He did not except to the master’s findings or appeal from the judgment of condemnation. Rather, he entered the usual appeal to a jury on value and then attempted to raise certain legal issues by way of answer, counterclaim and motion. The issues were raised too late. The trial court did not err.
Judgment affirmed.