THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos :3307, 3309, 3310, 3311, 3312, 3320, 3321, 3338, 3339 and 3340 of 2010, Date: 6.8.2010 Between: Komireddy Narayan Reddy and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Special Deputy Collector (l.A.)SRBC, Banaganapalli. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.Subbareddy Counsel for the Respondent : A.G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos : 3307, 3309, 3310, 3311, 3312, 3320, 3321, 3338, 3339 and 3340 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: This batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises out of order dated 14.7.2010 in I.A. No.348 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No. 40 of 2003; I.A. No. 345 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.30 of 2003; I.A. No. 340 of 2010 in L.A.O.P. No. 25 of 2003; I.A. No. 341 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.26 of 2003; I.A. No.344 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.29 of 2003; I.A. No.342 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.27 of 2003; I.A. No. 346 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No. 31 of 2003; I.A. No. 343 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No. 28 of 2003; I.A. No. 339 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No.24 of 2003 and I.A. No.347 of 2009 in L.A.O.P.No. 39 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The petitioners are the claimants in the aforesaid O.Ps. referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) for enhancement of compensation. During the course of the trial, the petitioners have come up with the above mentioned I.As., for amendment of the O.Ps. in order to plead that the petitioners’ lands, which are the subject matter of the O.Ps., have Napa potentialities. The said applications were dismissed mainly on the ground that they were belated and also that such a plea changes the nature of the very claim. Having carefully considered the contents of the orders of the Court below and the submissions of Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not inclined to accept the view of the Court below that by allowing the amendment applications, the nature of the claims undergoes a change. By the amendments, the petitioners have only sought for raising an additional plea regarding the potentialities of the land. By no means, such a plea would change the nature or characteristic of the O.Ps. Be that as it may, I find justification in rejecting the petitioners’ applications on the ground that they are belated. As observed by the Court below, the O.Ps. have been pending since the year 2003 and are being adjourned from time to time. The trial was commenced on 2.6.2009 wherein P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. When the O.Ps. were coming up for further evidence, the petitioners have earlier filed I.A. No.242 of 2009 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and after dismissal of the said I.A., they have filed the present I.As. In my opinion, the petitioners have not shown due diligence in filing these applications and being belated, they deserve to be and were rightly dismissed by the Court below. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners from adducing the evidence pertaining to potentialities of lands, which shall be considered in accordance with law, by the Court below in the main O.Ps. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petitions, C.R.P.M.P. Nos. 4398, 4400, 4401, 4402, 4403, 4411, 4412, 4446, 4447 and 4448 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 6th August, 2010 pnb