IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.Nos : 5081, 5082 OF 2009 & 1123 OF 2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer, Gadwal. ..... PETITIONER AND Rami Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.Nos : 5081, 5082 OF 2009 & 1123 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: As the point involved in these three revisions is one and the same, these three revisions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners are the claimants whose lands were acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming a link road under the Land Acquisition Act after following the due procedure under law. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the awards fixing certain amounts towards compensation for acquisition of their respective lands. Being not satisfied with the awards of compensation, the petitioners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the matters were referred to the Civil Court and were numbered as L.A.O.P.Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2008. 3. Before the Court below, when the reference has come for adducing evidence by the petitioners, they remained absent. Ultimately, after considering the evidence on record, the Court below, by a common order dated 29-06-2009, dismissed all the L.A.O.Ps. and confirmed the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed applications in I.A. (S.R.) Nos.493, 494 and 495 of 2009, respectively, under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the said order dated 29-06-2009. It appears the same were returned by the office on 29-07-2009 with an endorsement “How this petition is maintainable. Time of 7 days.” The same are questioned in these revisions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy. 5. A bare perusal of the record shows that it is a fact that the office took an objection about the maintainability of the revisions and granted 7 days’ time for resubmission. Instead of resubmitting the applications, the petitioners hurriedly approached this Court and filed these revisions. When the application of this nature is returned by the office, it is always left open to the petitioners to explain and see that the matters are numbered and if the office still raises an objection, then they can make a request to the office to post the matter before the Court. Then on the order of the Court, if not satisfied, it is always left open to the petitioners to approach this Court and file a revision petition as provided under Section 115 CPC. Instead of following the said procedure, the petitioners have straight away approached this court and filed these revisions. Hence, I see no merits in these revisions. 6. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Court below and resubmit the interlocutory applications, which were returned on 29-07-2009, within a period of four weeks from today. The original documents, if any filed, shall be returned to the petitioners enabling them to resubmit them before the Court below. 7. With the aforesaid direction, all the revision petitioners are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 30th July 2010 KVR