The High Court · 2025

8. Smt. Vuppala Dhanalakshmi W/o. Late V.Rama Krishna aged about 68 years, R/o. H. No.1-6-14119/6, Road No.4, Vidyanagar, Suryapet, District Suryapet, TS.

9. Smt. K.Sridevi, W/o. Krian Kuamr, D/o. Late V.Rama Krishna, aged about 51 years, R/o. H.NO.2-2-17, Gandhi Chowk Khammam, TS. '10. Vuppala Sravan Kumar, S/o. Late Vuppala Rama Krishna, aged abaout 49 years, R/o. H.No.1-6-14119/6, Road No.4, Vidyanagar, Suryapet, District Suryapet, TS. -

11. Smt. Pulluri Madhuri, Wo. Srikanth D/o. Late V.Rama Krishna, aged about 47 years,, Hanamkonda, Dsitrict Warangal Ts. {Petitioners 8 to 11 are brought on record as LRS of deceased Fetitiioners No.2, i.e., "Vuppata R-ama Krishna" as per the Hon'ble Court order dated: 04.11.2025, vide l.A.No.3 of 2025, made in CRP No.2191 of 201e1 ... Petitioners/Petitio ners/Th i rd Parties AND 1 The ()ompetent Authority (Land Acquisition) and the Revenue Divisional Officr-.r, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RespondenURespondent No.1/Referring Officer

2. Yeer ala Narsaiah, S/o. Late Balaram, Aged about. Major, Occ. Agriculture R/o Siuryapet Town and District.

3. Veer.,ala Narsamma, Wo Laxmaiah, Aged about. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Neai, Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and district-s08 213.

4. Bolleddu Kashamma, Wo. Gopaiah, Aged about. major, Occ. Agriculture, Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District - 508 213.

5. Bolleddu Ramulamma, Wo Anthon, Aged about. Major, Occ: Agriculture Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District-s08 213.

6. Gajula Laxmi, Wo Samuel, Aged about. Major, Occ. Agriculture, Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District-s08 213.

7. Banclu Rudramma, Wo Ramulu, Aged about. Major, Occ. Agriculture Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District- 508 213

8. Chintamalla lndiramma, Wo. not known to the Petitioners, Aged about. Major, Occ. Agriculture Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District-508 213.

9. Veerjala Bixam, S/o. Late Balaramulu, Aged about. 57, Occ. Agriculture, Near. Rapole temple, Suryapet Town and District-s08 213. ... Respondents/Respondents/Claimants No.2 to 9 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further ltroceedings in LAOP No. 136 of 2011, on the file of the ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, pending disposal of the revision in the interest of justice. Gounsel fo,r the Petitionerffhird parties: SRI G.DHANANJAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.{, 2,4 to 8: -- Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI P.SASIDHARREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER THI] HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CI] REVISION PETITION No.2I91 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 20ll passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

2. Heard Mr.G.Dhananjai, learned counsel for the petitionersithird 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 20ll and the said lretition 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 reveats that the L.A.O.P.No.136 of 20ll was disposed on

28.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2019 in . _ I.A.No.l80 of 2014 in L.A.O.P.No.136 of 20ll passed by the 2 NNR,I C.RP.No.219l of 2019 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 irnplead them as claimants in L.A.o.P.No.136 of 20ll contending that originatly 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 tlre year, L954-55 and also in the seesala pahani for the ycar. 1955-56 to 1957-58 for the entile 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" and 9'l' respondents disputing the clairn of the petitioners contendingthat the same is not maintainable.

6. After going into the merits of the cas;e, considering the contentions of the parties and the decisions cited therein, in Bilquis Jahan Begum (died) per L.Rs and otlqs Vs.Mohd.Shuhed and J /uvfi,J C.R.P.No.2191 of 2019 others reported in 2017 (l) ALD 74, wherein the Hon'ble High Court while making discussion at para No.2 quoted a decision in Ramj,i Gupta Vs.Gopi Kishan Agrawal reported in 2Ol3 (4) ALD 178 (lic), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "A person who has not made an applicatton before the L.A.O for making a reference under Sectton 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 tn saying, unless there is an application under Section 30 to decide the dispute so as to the entttlement, 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, iruespective of no section l8 reference made for enhancement. Needless to say receiving compensation on protest for enhancement if at all done, any bene/it 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 onother Vs.Gopi Kishan Aganual(died) and others, reported in 2013 (4) ALD 178 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while making discussion at Para lrio.32, quoted a decisions reported in Prayug (Ipnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Suhakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Pradhikaran and onother,2003(4)ALD 36 (SC). 4 NNR,J C.R.p.Na219I of 2019 Allahabad Vikas Qr) "rt is we, estabrished that the reference court gets jurisdiction onry if the mafier is referred io tt u under section lg or Section 30 of the Act by tie Land-A-r{rU,r,on Olficer and if the civir court has got the jurisdiction and authority onry b decide the objections referred to it. The reference court connot widen the scope of its jttrtsdiction or decide maters whtch are not reiferred to tt,, dismissed the said apprication observing that if at a, the petitioners got any grievance or that they were not permitted to participate i' the award proceedings, first of alr they must approach the Land Acquisition officer and when the matter referred to the triar court and the petitioners cannot directry approach the reference court under order I Rure r0 cpc and opined that in those circumstances, the petition was not maintainabre and accordingry, crismissed the I.A.No.t80 of 20 t4 inL.A.O.p.No.I36 of 20I I. 7' pending Revision before this court, it is brought to the notice of this court that the subject LAop was dismissed on merits. As the petitioners being third parties to the subject LAop, the question of invoking the order I Rule r0 cpc does not arise. As nothing is pending before the triar court from trre date of disposal of the LAoP:.;ing upon the decision rendered by this ; i i i l I court in similarly situated matter in c.R.P.Nos.4734, 4766 and 5 NN&,I C.R.P.No.219I of 2019 4902 of 2017, held as follows:

6. Therebg without going into the other meits and to sag r,.one of the obseruatiors in the dismissal order of the louter courT i;z 1.A.Nos.2263,2264 and 2663 of 2014 anA waA prejudice the right of the petitioners, all tle three reuisions are di"sposed of' Itoweuer, bg keeping stag order in force for three weeks, so thnt the petitioners' remedg if at all meantime to file a third partA appeal, atso with reference to the expression of this Court in Ilatquis Jahan Begum Vs. Mahammad Sho,hcdt and A.V. I'apagga Shastrt Vs. Gottt. of A.P.2 the said factual aspects are akin to the present case, this Court is not inr:lined to go into the merits of the case considering the fact that the subject LAOP is disposed of before the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is also deserves to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum for seeking proper remedies that are available for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if a;rr!, shall stand closed. l62.orc) 6 ALT 6+6 1- grooa'! 1 SCC lr-\ To, SD/- .S.GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1- The ll Additionar District Judge, Nargonda at suryapet. 2. One C:C to SRt G.DHANANJAT Advocate tOpUCl 3. one cc to sRr P.SASTDHAR REDDDY, Advocate [opucl 4. one cc to sRr K|RAN PALAKURTHy, Advocate [opUC] 5. TwoCDCr )pres NVs/per {@ HIGH C}OURT DATEDti04l1112025 ORDEFI CRP.Nrr.2191 of 2019 $*: :.) lHE S ( 25 Fi:|j lii2f * DISMISSING THE CIUL REVISION PETITION fFs "hl*