THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.611 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 31.12.2009 passed in O.P.No.618 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Wanaparthy, whereby and where under the learned senior civil Judge over ruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein with regard to marking of an unregistered sale deed dated 26.12.1978. The petitioner is one of the claimants in O.P.No.618 of 2008. An extent of Ac.1.05 Gts in Survey No.301/2 came to be acquired by the government. In view of the rival claims with regard to the compensation payable to the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute to the civil Court for adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The civil court entertained the reference as O.P.No.618 of 2008. The second respondent Lalamma(Claimant No.2) claims the property under an unregistered sale deed dated 26.12.1978. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to marking the document on the ground that the sale deed is a compulsorily registerable one and it being not registered cannot be received in evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge overruled the objection on the ground that the sale deed came to be marked as an exhibit in the proceedings between the same parties after collecting the stamp duty and penalty and when the selfsame document is sought to be marked, the petitioner cannot raise any objection. For better appreciation, I deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order impugned in the revision, which reads as hereunder: “Though earlier the proposed document was considered in the earlier proceedings in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Kollaput, but at the same time it is to be noted that those proceedings are also between the same parties in the present case on hand except the variation that earlier suit was filed against the wife of R2 herein and the present proceedings are against R2.” The said order is assailed in the revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 19.02.2010. Despite notice being served on the respondent, none appeared on their behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order in revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the document sought to be marked on behalf of the second respondent is unregistered one and therefore, it cannot be admitted in evidence. As seen from the order impugned in the revision, the same document was marked in earlier proceedings as an exhibit after collecting stamp duty and penalty. Such is the situation, the petitioner herein cannot raise objection with regard to the marking of the said document in the present proceedings. The trial Court considered the material on record in right perspective and proceeded to over rule the objection raised by the petitioner. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15-12-2010 Rns