HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.968 of 2011 Date: July 12, 2011 Between: 1. Golla Ramulu & 13 others. … Petitioners and 1. Government of A.P., through L.A.O., Singoor Project, Sanga Reddy, Medak District & 6 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.968 of 2011 O R D E R: Fourteen out of the twenty petitioners in I.A.No.1359 of 2010 in L.A.O.P. No.844 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, filed this civil revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Court below dismissing the said application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay of 930 days in seeking restoration of L.A.O.P. No.844 of 2005 which was dismissed on 24.9.2007 for non-prosecution. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission in the civil revision petition and permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out notice to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Land Acquisition Officer, Singoor Project, Sanga Reddy, Medak, respondent No.1 herein. Despite service of notice, as evidenced by the acknowledgement card filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners along with his memo in proof of service dated 07.7.2011, respondent No.1 did not choose to put in an appearance. 3. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the Court below took note of the absence of the claimants and their counsel in the L.A.O.P on consecutive dates of hearing and concluded that they were not interested in pursuing the reference proceedings. The Court below was not impressed by the explanation given by the petitioners herein to the effect that one amongst them, claimant No.12, who was prosecuting the case on their behalf was suffering with Jaundice and therefore did not take steps to see that they were represented when the matter was taken up for hearing on various dates. 4. It is no doubt true that there is substantial delay on the part of the petitioners in seeking restoration of the L.A.O.P. It is however to be noticed that the petitioners, having been subjected to expropriatory acquisition of their land, sought a reference for enhancement of their compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Their valuable property rights were therefore in issue. The Court below ought to have considered this aspect and been more lenient in dealing with the delay on the part of the petitioners in seeking restoration of the L.A.O.P. It is stated that the petitioners are illiterate and therefore rely upon one amongst them, claimant No.12, to look after their interests and prosecute the L.A.O.P. As claimant No.12 was unwell and could not take steps to see that the matter was represented, it was dismissed for non-prosecution owing to continued absence of the claimants and their counsel. However, the petitioners are entitled to have the matter decided on merits so that they are adequately compensated for the loss of their land. This Court is therefore inclined to adopt an equitable approach. 5. The order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the Court below dismissing the I.A.No.1359 of 2010 in L.A.O.P. No.844 of 2005 refusing to condone the delay is accordingly set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed condoning the delay of 930 days on the part of the petitioners in filing the application for restoration of the L.A.O.P. on the condition that the petitioners pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sanga Reddy, within eight (8) weeks from today. The Court below shall reopen the L.A.O.P. and adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 12, 2011. BSB