THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2930 of 2011 Dated:- 29th July, 2011 Between:- Polumuru Satyavathi …Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer And Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2930 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 14.08.2001 passed in an un-numbered I.A. in L.A.O.P.No.60 of 1994 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The petitioner herein is shown as 12th claimant in L.A.O.P.No.60 of 1994 which was referred by Land Acquisition Officer – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1908, to decide the claims of the claimants for the land acquired. Several claimants appeared before the Court below and adduced evidence and their claims were accordingly decided. Since the petitioner herein did not appear before the Court below and failed to adduce any evidence, the Court below ordered that the remaining amount of Rs.27,959.28 ps shall be kept in civil Court deposit till the rightful owner comes up with proof of his title. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that that she filed an application before the Court below to re-open the matter to enable her to adduce evidence, mainly contending that due to her sickness, she could not represent her case before the Court below when L.A.O.P.No.60 of 1994 was pending. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner could not prosecute her case since she was called absent on 14.08.2001 and there was no representation and thus, the application was dismissed in limini and the amount which was withhold, was ordered to be sent back to the Government by the Court below. 5. After about six years, she filed an application on 21.01.2006 to re-open the matter, which was returned with an endorsement that L.A.O.P.No.60 of 1994 was submitted to this Court for reference in C.R.P.No.850 of 2003. Now, she challenges the orders passed on 14.08.2001. 6. Admittedly, there are larches on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the amount was already ordered to be returned to the Government and is not in civil Court deposit now. There is no proper explanation to re-open the matter after quite a long period. 7. Thus, interference in the impugned order is declined and the revision, being meritless, is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 29th July, 2011 Bvv