THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2636 & 2675 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.2636 of 2011 is directed against the docket order, dated 02.02.2009, in I.A.No.187 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein, was dismissed as infructuous. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.2675 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 02.02.2009, in I.A.No.387 of 2007 in I.A.No.187 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Siricilla, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein, was allowed, directing the petitioners herein to deposit the cheque amount into Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 4. As the two matters are interrelated, they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for partition of the schedule properties. Petitioners-defendants 1 and 2, who are contesting the suit, filed the written statement. 1st respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.387 of 2007 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to deposit the amount received by them by way of a cheque towards the compensation for the lands. According to the plaintiff, they are also entitled for a share in the said compensation amount. Petitioners herein filed the counter opposing the claim of the 1st respondent-plaintiff and denying that he is having any share in the suit property or in the compensation amount. Admittedly, 1st respondent herein- plaintiff has not sought any reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking adjudication of his claim for a share in the compensation amount. According to the petitioners, the said land was their self-acquired property and therefore they were paid the compensation amount by the authorities long prior to filing of the suit. 6. Admittedly, land acquisition proceedings have been concluded. The claim of the 1st respondent-plaintiff for a share in the acquired land is yet to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court. Until and unless the 1st respondent- plaintiff is able to establish his claim for a share in the acquired land, the question of the petitioners being directed to deposit the said amount into the Court does not simply arise. It is open to the 1st respondent-plaintiff to pursue his remedies available under law if and when his claim for a share in the compensation amount gets established. However, petitioners cannot be called upon to deposit the amount into the Court at this length of time, long after the conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings. The impugned order, directing the petitioners to deposit the cheque amount received from the land acquisition authorities, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. For the same reasons, the impugned order, dated 02.02.2009, in I.A.No.187 of 2007 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 is set aside. Consequently, the warrant of arrest, said to have been issued in pursuance of the impugned order in I.A.No.387 of 2007, directing arrest of the petitioners herein, is also set aside. 8. In the result, C.R.P.No.2636 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous as the impugned order shows that I.A.No.187 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent was in fact treated as infructuous by the trial Court and C.R.P.No.2675 of 2011 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st September, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 26.09.2011. B/o Tsy