THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 609 of 2009 Date: 09.10.2009 Between: Tuduru Ravinder & another ………….. Petitioners and Tuduru Vithal & others …….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No. 609 of 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition has been instituted by S.Sri T. Ravinder and T. Venugopal, S/o Late Sri Vittal. Land of an extent of Ac.17.19 guntas situate in Survey No. 90 of Kothapet Village has been acquired by the State for providing house sites to the poor. The Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.49,000/- per acre and accordingly, determined the total amount of compensation payable as Rs.11,85,845/-. However, in view of the disputes amongst the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred to make a reference under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the civil Court and deposited the entire compensation money with the said civil Court. Thus, O.P. No. 27 of 1997 has come to be enquired into for the purpose of apportioning the compensation amount amongst the eligible claimants. Sri T. Vittal was the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 27 of 1997. His four sons, namely S. Sri T. Ravinder and T. Venugopal, the petitioners herein and S. Sri T. Chandrasekhar and T. Jagadishwar, Respondents 3 and 4 herein have also been impleaded to the said O.P. No. 27 of 1997. Ultimately, all the parties have entered into a compromise and in terms of that compromise arrangement, a decree came to be passed in O.P. No. 27 of 1997 on 14th July 1998. The petitioners herein were declared as entitled to 1/5th share from 3/4th share of the compensation amount receivable. Such a decree came to be passed in view of the fact that all the four sons of Sri T. Vittal, having attained the age of majority are entitled to get one share each. In terms of the decree passed in O.P. No. 27 of 1997 on 14th July 1998, the petitioners herein along with Respondents 3 and 4 have all got equal amount of compensation. In the interregnum, the original claimant has solicited a reference to be made to the civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act, as he was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, O.P. No. 58 of 2000 has come to be instituted under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. To the said O.P., the petitioners herein are not made parties inasmuch as they never solicited a similar request before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer their dispute also for enhancement of the compensation to the civil Court. However, the petitioners herein have moved I.A. No. 221 of 2004 seeking impleadment in the said O.P. No. 58 of 2000. That Application was contested and ultimately, by an order passed on 6th March 2006, it was dismissed. Against that order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.V.V.S. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4. Learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 who opposed the Civil Revision Petition has pointed out that the petitioners herein are deliberately and purposefully delaying the process of determination of higher amount of compensation payable by the civil Court for the lands acquired, by their non-cooperation. Though they knew that O.P. No. 27 of 997 was decreed on 14th July 1998 and they are also aware that for seeking additional compensation/higher amount of compensation, a reference has got to be made, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, they have not moved in the matter. Even when O.P. No. 58 of 2000 was moved, they kept quite for four long years to move I.A.No.221 of 2004. Even after a decision is rendered in I.A.No. 221 of 2004, they are not diligent enough in prosecuting the above Civil Revision Petition and they have purposefully delayed the entire process so as to cause loss and damage to the contesting respondents. While it is true that the conduct of the petitioners herein is far below than what is expected of a diligent litigant, but nevertheless, when once they are impleaded as party respondents to O.P.No. 27 of 1997, and the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is allowed to be apportioned to them also, it is but fair and proper that they should also be impleaded in the present O.P. No. 58 of 2000, which has been instituted for securing enhancement of the compensation amount, but at the same time, lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners herein to prosecute their rights properly, should not cause undue delay for the respondents herein from enjoying the fruits of possible enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired by the State. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow the Civil Revision Petition and permit the petitioners herein to be also added as respondents to O.P.No. 58 of 2000 and provide them an opportunity to lead evidence for the purpose of determination of the higher quantum of compensation payable for the lands acquired, but however, the learned counsel for the petitioners has suggested to compensate the respondents by paying them an amount of Rs.1,000/- each towards costs for the delay in prosecuting the claims of the petitioners herein. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to pay Respondents 3 and 4 by way of crossed account payee demand draft/pay order a sum of Rs.1,000/- each within a period of 15 days from today. With this, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 9th October 2009 ksld