The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3461 of 2009 Order: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the proposed claimant in I.A.No.63 of 2009 in O.P.No.53 of 2008, aggrieved by an Order, dated 22-06-2009, passed therein by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. On 10th August, 2009, this Court ordered Notice Before Admission and on 30th October, 2009, the learned Counsel for petitioner was permitted to take out personal notices to the respondents. In compliance thereof, the learned Counsel for petitioner has filed a memo, dated 20-11-2009, along with acknowledgments in proof of service of notices on the respondents. In spite of the same, there is no appearance on behalf of respondents to oppose this application. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.63 of 2009, seeking his impleadment as claimant No.3 in O.P.No.53 of 2008 pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, but the same was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, without going into the merits thereof, by relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in Smt.Ambey Devi vs. State of Bihar and another.[1] It is submitted by the learned Counsel for petitioner that the judgment in Smt.Ambey Devi’s case (1 supra) has already been explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Repaka Bhyravamurthy and another vs. Muppidi Venkataraju and others[2]. While explaining the scope of ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act, the Full Bench of this Court held that a person may not be entitled to be impleaded as a party only for the purpose of enhancement of compensation, but if there arise any other question, which touches the issue of his entitlement or apportionment to the amount of compensation, the same can be considered in an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Inasmuch as the Court below has not taken into account the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Repaka Bhyravamurthy (2 supra), and as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service of notices, and as the Court below, without going into the merits of the application, rejected the same only on the ground of maintainability, I deem it appropriate to allow this revision petition, setting aside Order, dated 22-06-2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon in I.A.No.63 of 2009 in O.P.No.53 of 2008, and direct he learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, to consider the petitioner’s application in the light of the judgment of this Court reported in Repaka Bhyravamurthy (2 supra) and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 1st December, 2009 lur [1] AIR 1996 SC 1513 [2] AIR 2002 Andhra Pradesh 77