THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.3166 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The dispute in this revision arises in unusual circumstances, and be it a mistake or an intentional tampering in the records, it has led to the present lis between the parties. The petitioner herein, who is the respondent No.5 in the Court below in the application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, allowing an application filed by them namely, the respondents 1 to 4 herein I.A.No.288 of 2000 in O.P.No.2 of 1988, dated 19th April 2006, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District purportedly filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein they sought for review of the Judgment and Decree in O.P.2 of 1988, dated 3-8-1989 by adding them as claimants 14 to 17 in the reference O.P, so as to entitle for receiving their share of compensation, which comes to about Rs.97,286/- together with interest etc., which has been accrued thereon, in respect of the land, which has been acquired by the State in Sy.No.57 to an extent of Ac.2-00, situated in Naganool Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal, District Mahaboobnagar. Briefly, the facts of the case are, that the respondents 1 to 4 claims to be the absolute owners and possessors of the aforesaid land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, whereas the State has acquired the land in Sy.No.57 and 109, to an extent of Ac.13-02 guntas and Ac.5-00 gts for providing the house-sites by initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, an award was passed on 14-7-1987, and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Civil Court, which was disposed of as per the Judgment and Decree dated 3-8-1989 fixing the market rate at Rs.27,000/- per acre for the land acquired along with other statutory benefits. In pursuance thereof a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- was deposited. The complaint of the respondents 1 to 4 was that even though the petitioners along with other claimants have received their share of compensation, but however, they did not and could not possibly withdraw the same in view of the fact that their names are not arrayed as claimants 14 to 17 in spite of the fact that a reference was made for their land and award was passed fixing the market rate for the same, which has been kept in fixed deposit. Hence the application. The said application was contested by the petitioner, which has been adopted by the other claimants denying about the claim as set forth by the respondents 1 to 4, and further that even as per the personal law, the question of any entitlement by the said petitioners in the Court below does not arise. Subsequently, after hearing both sides, though neither side has produced any evidence or material in support of their case, the Court below on a careful scrutiny of the record has found that there is no dispute in regard to the fact that the land of the respondents 1 to 6 were acquired and they were parties to the proceedings before the Land acquisition Officer and an award was passed. However, there is a tampering of the records of the reference by affixing the new papers containing the names of the others and their mother and pasted original names written by the Land Acquisition on a reference with a different ink and the said affixed paper is not having any signature of any authority or the Land Acquisition Officer. So, it clearly shows that original names, which include respondents 1 to 6 were tampered by affixing paper with new names in order to avoid the compensation to be passed with an intention to rectify the mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Officer referring the names. Yet, the same was done during the pendency of another reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, a dispute arose between the parties in O.P.No.130 of 1987 where no such deletion was made in regard to the respondents 1 to 6. Therefore, by such a categorical finding and with a total re-look at the record and the mischief committed though not named by whom, the Court below allowed the application. Both sides were heard in detail and at length and on considering the entire submissions from them, the pointer is only in regard to the entitlement of the respondents 1 to 6 in the compensation. Since there is no serious dispute at all on behalf of the petitioner or the other contesting respondents in the Court below in regard to the acquisition of the land belonging to the respondents 1 to 6 and their participation in the award enquiry and award being passed and the market rate being fixed for them. Further there is also no dispute in regard to the parallel reference under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in O.P.No.130 of 1987 where the names of the respondents 1 to 6 continues to be shown and existing, it cannot be said that the respondents 1 to 6, the applicants in the Court below in the interim application are totally strangers or in no way concerned nor can be said to have no locus etc. Further, it has been perused by the Court below the records of the reference where a tampering is crystal clear and can be taken note of to a naked eye. There is a pasting of paper on the names of the respondents 1 to 6 and there is different ink and there is no signature on such pasted paper. It is quite a very serious issue, which has not been taken note of with a similar such seriousness by the authorities concerned, and there is no explanation forthcoming either from the Land Acquisition Officer or by the State. Necessarily, it calls for a proper enquiry from their side to identify the culprit and take appropriate action by them both civil and criminal action. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid findings and the serious aspect of the matter where record is being meddled with, no indulgence need to be shown to the petitioner nor there is any warrant for interference in this revision. In the aforesaid circumstances, there are no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (B.PRAKAH RAO,J Dated:1-4-2011 Grk