The revision petitioner is petitioner No.1 by name Smt. Madhumathi, w/o. Sri Bikkilal in I.A.No.366 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.1880 of 2011(Section 30 reference) on the file of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Said I.A.No.366 of 2014 was filed by four petitioners seeking to come on record as claimants 4 to 7 by showing the Special Deputy Collector, L.A. (G.H.M.C.) as respondent No.1 and P.Suresh Kumar, P.Munna Swamy and Sonydayal, claimants 1 to 3 of L.A.O.P.No.1880 of 2011 as respondents No.2 to 4. Their implead petition is with the averments that they are the joint owners of house bearing No.5-1-499 to 5-1-505 admeasuring 333.03 square yards situated at Putlibowli, Hyderabad, which they got under the registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1577/1976, that was purchased in the name of Madhumathi, Bikkilal and one Jayaram and Jayaram died later on 09.12.2003, leaving behind him his wife Pushpa Bai and son Amarnath. The Assistant City Planner, Circle No.VIII, GHMC, Town Planning Section, Hyderabad, vide letter, dated 11.07.2008, sent proposals to the District Collector, Hyderabad for acquisition of land for road widening and it was published in the local newspapers and in the Hyderabad District Gazette on 19.09.2008. The petitioners received notices under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the LA Act) to submit their objections, which they have submitted. The petitioner No.1-Madhumathi supra filed W.P.No.4093 of 2006 before the High Court and it was disposed of on 30.03.2006 against the Municipal Commissioner, G.H.M.C. directing not to demolish the premises of petitioners without following due process of law under Sections 146&147 of the G.H.M.C. Act by way of private negotiation or by initiation of proceedings under LA Act. The District Collector on enquiry ruled out their objections. However, the respondents 3 to 5 (three claimants) only figured and not reflected all the names in the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 11.02.2009. Despite petitioners made representations, the Special Deputy Collector did not consider and behind their back the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 LA Act, as if only three claimants supra, even they have no title, but for the present proposed implead petitioners and as such they are necessary and proper parties to the pending Section 30 LA Act reference in L.A.O.P.No.1880 of 2011.

2. Respondent No.4-Sonydayal-claimant No.3, among the three claimants of said L.A.O.P. supra, in his counter contended that the proposed petitioners have no right over the petition schedule property. Said Madhumathi, Bikkilal and Jayaram filed R.C.No.75/1979 against R. Satyanarayana, R.C.No.71/1979 against Shanti and company, R.C.Nos.72 & 73 of 1979 against Munna Swamy Naidu and R.C.No.74/1979 against the father of claimant No.3-Sonydayal and all the cases were ended in dismissal vide orders dated 31.01.1987 by the learned Rent Controller with a finding of they have no right over the property and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the Rent Control Appeals were also ended in dismissal. It is also averred that Madhumathi, Bikkilal and Jayaram even went unsuccessful in the revisions before the High Court in the rent control matter supra and all these facts show that they have no title over the property and therefore, they have no manner of claim much less to come on record by impleadment.

3. The impugned order of the lower Court in dismissing the implead petition on 03.03.2014, after hearing from the above pleadings is with the observation that the claim of the petitioners to come on record as proposed claimants 4 to 7 is based on registered Sale Deed, dated 20.05.1976, however, they went unsuccessful in the rent control matters in seeking eviction as referred in the counter of the claimants in L.A.O.P.No.1880 of 2011 and they did not refer in the implead petitions regarding the result of those rent control matte