THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5085 of 2010 Dated:18.11.2010 Between: Y.Somasekhar. ….Petitioner And Y.Chandrasekhar, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5085 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed the suit for partition, being O.S.No.156 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Thamballapalle. Thereafter, he filed I.A.No.340 of 2008 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to implead respondent Nos.9 to 11 herein as defendant Nos.9 to 11 in the suit. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application on 03.02.2010, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s case in the interlocutory application is that the District Collector initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring the lands at Boorlapalle Village for development under AVRHSSS-2 (Package No.27) for construction of branch canals under Hundri Neeva scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) thereof was issued on 31.01.2008. At that stage, the petitioner allegedly unearthed an unregistered Will dated 05.05.1961 executed by his grandmother Challa Mangamma in favour of his mother bequeathing certain lands in Boorlapalle Village which also, according to the petitioner, must form part of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.156 of 2004. The petitioner then issued a legal notice dated 02.04.2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer requesting not to disburse the compensation amount to any claimants, in vain. Therefore, he filed the Interlocutory Application for impleadment. Counsel for the petitioner made elaborated submissions. Nonetheless, this Court is not convinced that the impugned order suffers from any error. When the petitioner came across the Will dated 05.05.1961, is it before the proposals for acquiring the land at Boorlapalle Village were initiated or after that? If the petitioner has any right in the lands which are acquired, what prevented him from raising a dispute before the Revenue Divisional Officer and seek a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. These are all the matters which are not satisfactorily answered by the petitioner. While considering this aspect of the matter, the Court below observed as under. On considering the averments of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and respondents there is no material available before this Court prima facie to show that the petitioner has right over the S.No.256/2C and without filing any document the petitioner has filed the petition along with the affidavit to implead R9 to R11 as D9 to D11 in the suit. Further the petitioner do not place any material before this court to establish that the land was acquired by the government and the compensation is being paid to the 11th respondent. Therefore on considering the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner to implead R9 to R11 as necessary parties to the suit. Hence the petition is dismissed. The reasoning of the learned trial Court while dismissing the application is sound and sustainable. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.11.2010 vs