1. This revision is directed against the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, in I.A.No.60 of 2007 in LAOP No.46 of 2006 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, to bring him on record as the legal representative of one Mala Kistanna was dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner herein is the objector in the award No.24 of 2006 dated 09.06.2006. He claims that his father Chandrappa and Kistanna are brothers. In the last days of said Kistanna, according to the petitioner, he extended his services to Kistanna, who is none other than his junior paternal uncle. Having been satisfied with his services, the said Kistanna executed a registered a Will on 14.11.2006 bequeathing an extent of Ac.6.21 guntas in Sy.No.139/a to him. Further, according to the petitioner, the said Kistanna sold an extent of Ac.1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.138/a situated in Katrevupalli village under registered sale deed dated 14.11.2006 to him. However, the Land Acquisition Officer had acquired Ac.1.26 guntas of land in Sy.No.138/a and an extent of Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.139/a. While the matter is pending, the said Kistanna died on 06.03.2007. Now, by virtue of the Will executed by the said Kistanna, the petitioner herein stepped into the shoes of the said Kistanna and hence he is entitled to receive compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer.

3. This court on 24.08.2009, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay.

4. The respondents 2 and 3, being minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian i.e. first respondent, filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that they are the grand children of the said Kistanna and that they became title holders of the said lands by virtue of principle of succession as their father by name Obanna son of said Kistanna died. They denied the execution of the Will deed by said Kistanna in token of services alleged to have been rendered by the petitioner herein and also the sale deed on the day of Will. Their contention is that being the legal heirs of their father late Obanna, who is the son of said Kistanna, they issued notice to the Land Acquisition Officer not to pay total compensation to the said Kistanna. Accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the court below under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and after the matter being referred, the said Kistanna died leaving behind the respondents 2 to 4 as his legal representatives. It is further contended that after the death of said Kistanna the respondents made an application to the Tahsildar for mutation of their names as legal representatives of said Kistanna and after following due procedure, the Tahsildar ordered mutation of their names in the revenue records at which time there was no opposition from the petitioner. But, subsequently challenging the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner herein filed appeal before the RDO Narayanpet and the same was dismissed by order dated 05.05.2008 on contest by the respondents with an observation that as the alleged sale deed and the alleged Will dated 14.11.2006 are after publication of Draft Declaration Orders by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.01.2006, therefore, it will not have legal force to get compensation, particularly when the deceased Kistanna is having legal heirs and the property is ancestral one and not his self acquired property and unless and until his share is divided he has no right to execute any such deeds. The said order of the RDO has become final, declaring the respondents as legal representatives of late Kistanna. Now the petitioner filed the present I.A.No.60 of 2007 in LAOP No.46 of 2006 on the file of the court below to bring him as one of the parties to the proceedings on the basis of the registered sale deed and Will dated 14.11.2006 executed by late Kistanna and that the petitioner filed the present petition only to grab the compensation.