THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2191 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/third parties, assailing the order dated 06.06.2019 in I.A.No.180 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.136 of 2011 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

2. Heard Mr.G.Dhananjai, learned counsel for the petitioners/third parties, Mr.P.Sasidhar Reddy learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and Mr.Kiran Palakurthy learned counsel for respondent No.9. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts, in a nutshell, are that the revision petitioners herein are the third parties to the L.A.O.P.No.136 of 2011 and the said petition was heard on merits and disposed on 28.04.2021 by the learned trial Court, against which the present revision is filed.

4. A perusal of case status information of the trial Court, which reveals that the L.A.O.P.No.136 of 2011 was disposed on 28.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2019 in I.A.No.180 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.136 of 2011 passed by the learned trial Court the present Revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners herein are the third parties to the L.A.O.P and they intended to come on record in the said L.A.O.P. by filing application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as claimants in L.A.O.P.No.136 of 2011 contending that originally the land in Sy.No.495 is the absolute property of the petitioners and father of the petitioners, accordingly, the name of the father of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue records and khasara pahani for the year, 1954-55 and also in the seesala pahani for the year, 1955-56 to 1957-58 for the entire extent of 9.30 guntas in Sy.No.495. Except the petitioners and their father no others have got right in the said property. Counter was filed by the 1^st and 9^th respondents disputing the claim of the petitioners contending that the same is not maintainable.

6. After going into the merits of the case, considering the contentions of the parties and the decisions cited therein, in Bilquis Jahan Begum (died) per L.Rs and others Vs.Mohd.Shahed and others reported in 2017 (1) ALD 74, wherein the Hon'ble High Court while making discussion at para No.2 quoted a decision in Ramji Gupta Vs.Gopi Kishan Agrawal reported in 2013 (4) ALD

178 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "A person who has not made an application before the L.A.O for making a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1984 cannot get himself impleaded directly before the reference Court".

In the same decision the Hon'ble High Court at Para No.6 held that:

"What is there from answered by the Apex Court is in saying, unless there is an application under Section 30 to decide the dispute so as to the entitlement, the question of impleadment by a stranger to the reference does not arise. This aspect is not properly considered by the lower Court. It is needless to say, if at all any such application is made, remedy is left open for Section 30 references, irrespective of no section 18 reference made for enhancement. Needless to say receiving compensation on protest for enhancement if at all done, any benefit enured thereby to those persons in such a way can be adjudicated either by maintaining a separate suit or by making an application under Section 30 for reference".

Decision reported in Ramji Gupta and another Vs.Gopi Kishan Agarwal(died) and others, reported in 2013 (4) ALD 178 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while making discussion at Para No.32, quoted a decisions reported in Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and another, 2003 (4)ALD 36 (SC).

(II) “It is well established that the reference Court gets jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it u under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and if the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections referred to