HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.347 of 2011 Date: September 09, 2011 Between: 1. S. Amulya & another. … Petitioners and 1. Gujjula Renuka & 3 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.347 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition filed I.A. No.2011 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.691 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking to be impleaded as claimants in the said O.P. By order dated 05.3.2010, the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissed the application on the ground that the civil Court was not competent to entertain such an application and allow a party to be impleaded after the reference was made to the Court. 2. The petitioners are mother and daughter. They lay a claim to part of the acquired land which is the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No.691 of 2008 on the basis of registered documents. The second petitioner, the mother, purchased an extent of Ac.8.00 guntas of land situated in Survey No.209 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, under registered sale deed No.909/1998. She executed registered gift deed No.16527/2007 dated 11.7.2007, whereby she gifted an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas out of the land purchased by her in favour of her daughter, the first petitioner. Part of this land is said to have been acquired by the State for the purpose of formation of the Outer Ring Road. The petitioners submitted representation dated 11.10.2007 to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Outer Ring Road, the fourth respondent herein, bringing it to his notice that they were interested in the acquisition proceedings to the extent of their lands. Award dated 02.02.2008 was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) in respect of this land along with other extents. However, as there was a dispute with regard to the apportionment of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer, the fourth respondent herein, referred the matter under Section 30 of the Act to the competent civil court. 3. Pertinent to note, in so far as Survey No.209 of Kollur village is concerned, the name of the second petitioner, the mother, is indicated in the reference, but the daughter’s name is not specifically mentioned. The reference reads that the purchasers include S. Hemalatha, wife of Ramachandra Rao (second petitioner) and other interested persons. As the daughter’s name did not find specific mention in the reference, the subject application was filed before the reference court of the learned District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, seeking impleadment. 4. The court below, relying upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan[1], concluded that it was not open to the petitioners to seek impleadment as claimants in a reference under Section 30 of the Act by approaching the Court and that they would have to approach the Collector who alone was competent to pass an order in this regard, and dismissed the application. 5. Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the judgment in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., H yderabad v . Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (1 supra) is distinguishable on facts and that the earlier judgment of this Court i n Vadlamani Sarojini Devi v . T. Satyanarayana Rao[2] would squarely cover the issue. 6. In Vadlamani Sarojini Devi v. T. Satyanarayana Rao (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P.) Ltd., v. Francis Victor Coutinho[3], held that where the name of one of the claimants was not mentioned in the order of reference by mistake though he was a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, he would be entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the civil Court. M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (1 supra) involved a case where the party who sought impleadment before the Reference Court was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. In such circumstances, this Court held that the Court could not implead such a party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and that the remedy for such a party would be to approach the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. In the present case, the facts clearly demonstrate that both the petitioners already approached the Land Acquisition Officer, the fourth respondent herein, by way of their representation dated 11.10.2007 and the same was acted upon, whereby the name of the second petitioner was specifically mentioned in the reference under Section 30 of the Act. The mistake committed by the fourth respondent was in not naming the first petitioner separately and in baldly stating that the purchasers included S.Hemalatha (second petitioner) and other interested persons. It is therefore clear that both the petitioners were parties to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, the fourth respondent, and the principle laid down by this Court in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v . Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (1 supra) had no application. The decision in Vadlamani Sarojini Devi v . T. Satyanarayana Rao (2 supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case. Losing sight of this aspect, the Court below blindly followed the judgment in M/s. Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan (1 supra) and rejected the petitioners’ application for impleadment. The said order is therefore erroneous on facts and is accordingly set aside. The reference court of the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, is directed to implead the petitioners herein as parties/claimants in L.A.O.P. No.691 of 2008 to the extent it involves their lands in Survey No.209 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 09, 2011. BSB [1] AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 199 (D.B) [2] 1988 (2) APLJ 275 (D.B) [3] AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1118