THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.4811 of 2006 Date: 15.12.2010 Between: Ambavaram Pedda Roshin Saheb … Petitioner AND Special Deputy Collector, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.4811 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was the claimant in OP No.303 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Ac.0.35 cents of the petitioner was acquired for Srisailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC). The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.10.2002 determining the compensation at Rs.44,000/- per acre in respect of the some of the lands acquired. The land of the petitioner was in that category of lands valued at Rs.44,000/- per acre. It would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer valued some other lands acquired at the same time at Rs.38,000/- per acre. 2. The case of the petitioner was numbered as OP No.303 of 2003 while the references of other owners were numbered as OP Nos.319 and 320 of 2003 as well as other OPs. 3. It would appear that OP No.319 of 2003 and other OPs were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in OP No.319 of 2003. The petitioner claims that he came to know about the same and instructed his counsel to request the Court to club OP No.303 of 2003 also with OP No.319 of 2003 and other batch matters. As OP No.303 of 2003 stood post to 14.09.2004, it would appear that the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the petitioner that he would make the necessary representation before the Court on 14.09.2004. 4. These are the facts. However, on 14.09.2004, neither the petitioner was present nor his counsel made representation before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Considering that the claimant (the petitioner herein) has no evidence, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda disposed of OP No.303 of 2003 declining to enhance the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. The petitioner thereafter moved I.A.No.75 of 2004 in OP No.303 of 2003 to set aside the order closing OP No.303 of 2003. Through the impugned order dated 17.03.2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda dismissed I.A.No.75 of 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2005 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Nandyal. Through the impugned order, dated 05.07.2006, the learned V Additional District Judge, Nandyal dismissed C.M.A.No.4 of 2005, thereby confirming the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda in closing OP No.303 of 2003. The petitioner thereafter preferred the present revision. 6. The petitioner filed his affidavit as well as the affidavit of his counsel before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda in I.A.No.75 of 2005 seeking for the reopening of OP No.303 of 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner deposed through his affidavit that he could not appear before the Court on 14.09.2004 as he was held up in the traffic. The petitioner in his affidavit also stated that the absence of himself and his counsel to appear before the Court on 14.09.2004 was not deliberate. Nevertheless, the learned trial Judge considered that there were no merits in I.A.No.75 of 2004 and unfortunately the learned V Additional District Judge, Nandyal also approved the view of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. 7. I am afraid that where not only the petitioner but his counsel also filed affidavit explaining why the petitioner and his counsel could not appear before the Court on 14.09.2004, the learned trial Judge could have accepted the contention at least by way of liberal attitude. 8. Added to it, it would appear that the amount of compensation awarded at Rs.38,000/- by the Land Acquisition Officer in the relevant batch of acquisitions would appear to have been enhanced to Rs.95,700/- and the acquisition at Rs.44,000/- per acre was enhanced to Rs.1,08,700/- by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda through orders dated 28.07.2009. It would also appear that neither side preferred any appeal therefrom and that the orders in the batch of land acquisition petitions became final. 9. The petitioner, whose land was acquired, determining the value at Rs.44,000/- per acre certainly deserves reconsideration of his claim. In this background where the value of the land was enhanced by the trial Court and also where the petitioner satisfactorily explained his absence before the Court on 14.09.2004, I consider that the revision deserves to be allowed reopening OP No.303 of 2003. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed together with I.A. No.75 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda and C.M.A.No.4 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Nandyal. O.P.No.303 of 2003 is restored to file. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda is requested to dispose of OP No.303 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible as it is an old matter. No costs. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 15.12.2010 Isn