IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3423 of 2009 Between: 1.Smt.Duddela Anjamma, W/o.Shankaraiah, aged 60 years, Occ: House Wife, H.No.16-33, Venugopalaswamy Temple Street, Herial Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Revenue Divisional Officer- Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Jangaon Revenue Division, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondents in O.P.No.1 of 2008 aggrieved by Order, dated 23-06-2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, in I.A.No.168 of 2009 filed therein. Petitioners’ land admeasuring Ac.6-14 guntas in Survey No.996 in Cherial Village, Warangal District, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). As per the revenue records, it appears that the first petitioner on record is the owner and possessor of the said land and the second petitioner, who is his son, claims that the first petitioner has gifted the said land to him by way of a registered gift deed. When the petitioners filed a claim petition before the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, claiming compensation to the acquired land, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Act to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, and the same was numbered as OP.No.1 of 2008. In the said OP, the petitioners herein filed an interlocutory application being I.A.No.168 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to amend the reference made in the said OP, to treat the said reference as reference under Section 18 of the Act, but the same is dismissed by impugned order. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. It is submitted by Sri B.Devanand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that there is no dispute between the petitioners inter se with regard to apportionment of the compensation awarded by the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer; that they were protesting only with regard to the quantum of compensation fixed by him; that as the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer has mistakenly sent the reference under Section 30 instead of Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners filed I.A.No.168 of 2008 for amendment thereof and that the Court below has, without recording valid reasons, rejected the same. As per the counter, filed on behalf of the respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, it appears that reference was made under Section 30 of the Act in view of the fact that in the revenue records the name of the first petitioner was recorded as owner and possessor of the land in question, but the second petitioner has claimed compensation, without any documentary evidence thereof, stating that the said land was gifted to him by the first petitioner. If the petitioners have any grievance regarding the quantum of compensation fixed under Section 18 of the Act, they can as well take steps independently for reference under Section 18 of the Act. As the reference in O.P.No.1 of 2008 is made under Section 30 of the Act, no amendment is permissible therein by entertaining an interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’), and if the same is allowed, the very nature of the reference proceedings will be changed. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Court below has correctly rejected I.A.No.168 of 2009 filed by the petitioners and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. At the same time, when the petitioners, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed, filed a protest application seeking reference, it is also open to them to take independent steps for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Mere dismissal of I.A.No.168 of 2009 does not, in any way, come in their way for taking such steps. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 13th August, 2009 lur