Judgment :- Way back on 17-10-1974, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short’the Act’) was issued proposing to acquire vast extends of land, for the purpose of Srisailam Hydro Electrical Project. The lands in different survey numbers of Bekkem Village of Mahaboobnagar District were also notified. Smt. Balija Lingamma, W/o.Nagaiah was owner of Ac.20.30 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.387,388 and 395 of that village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 22-11-1976, in respect of lands held by various individuals. On a request made by the land owners, the matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanapathy, and it was numbered as O.P.No.503 of 1985. In the proceedings in the O.P., Lingamma was shown as claimant No.9. The O.P. was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, in the year 1997, and registered as O.P.No.82 of 1997. It was retransferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanapathy and, renumbered as O.P.No.202 of 2003. Some controversy has arisen as to certain acts and omissions, in the matter of passing the award, a making a reference, as the case may be. Inquiry by the A.C.B. was ordered. Therefore, almost for decades together, the trial of the O.P. did not take place. The petitioner claims to have been adopted by Lingamma, as son, Lingamma died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner was issued a legal heir certificate dated 18-11-1998 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veepagandla Mandal. On the strength of the same, he filed I.A.No.43 of 1999 and it was ordered on 24-10-2000. Even before coming on record as legal representative, the petitioner went on approaching various authorities, for early disposal of the O.P. Such representations were made to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, the Vigilance Commissioner, State of A.P., District Legal Services Authority, District Collector, etc. At one stage of the proceedings, it was noticed that the name of Lingamma did not find place in the award, and on a direction issued by the District Legal Services Authority, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Wanapathy, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to file the certified copy of the supplementary award, passed in respect of the lands of Lingamma. Accordingly, the supplementary award dated 22-11-1976 was filed, though a memo, by the learned Government Pleader in the trial Court. Accordingly, the supplementary award dated 22-11-1976 was filed, though a memo, by the learned Government Pleader in the trial Court. At a subsequent stage, the Land Acquisition Officer filed I.A.No.843 of 2004, under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to delete the name of the petitioner herein and certain others, from the cause title, on the ground that the order of reference did not contain those names. The petitioner opposed the application and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. Through orders dated 06-11-2006, the trial Court allowed the I.A. It is stated that the O.P. itself was dismissed, subsequently, on 04-12-2006. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records pertaining to award No.25/769, dated 22-11-1976, and to issue necessary directions to the respondent. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, in person. He states that his only source of livelihood was taken away, way back in the year 1974, and not being in a position to avail the services of an Advocte, he has been pursing the proceedings before the trial Court, as well as this Court, on his own. The lack of proper knowledge in the Court proceedings, on the part of the petitioner, is reflected in the pleadings as well as the prayer. At the request of this Court, Sri N.Bharath Babu, has rendered assistance in the Court. Inasmuch as the matter has undergone various steps and was dealt with, different courts, the entire record was called for. At one stage, the State Legal Services Authority and through it, the District Legal Services Authority also intervened, and certain collective steps were also taken before the trial Court. In view of the chequered career of the case, and without standing on technicalities, this Court treated the writ petition as a revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution, vis-à-vis the orders in I.A.No.843 of 2004. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that the very application presented by the respondent is untenable in law. It is stated that when the reference was pending, almost for two decades, before various Courts, and several steps were taken on the request made by the petitioner, there was no basis to delete him from the array of the parties. He contends that as long as the order in I.A.No.43 of 1999 is in force, the present application, i.e. I.A.No. 843 of 2004 is totally untenable in law. He contends that as long as the order in I.A.No.43 of 1999 is in force, the present application, i.e. I.A.No. 843 of 2004 is totally untenable in law. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, made detailed submissions. According to him, the very basis for the O.P is an order of reference under Section 18 of the Act, and since it had emerged that the name of Lingamma did not find place in the order of reference, the necessity had arisen to file the I.A.No.843 of 2004. It is stated that the present proceedings are untenable, in view of the Act that the O.P itself has since been disposed of, upholding the Award. A simple reference under Section 18 of the Act had assumed several complications over the years. It is a matter of record that an extent of Ac.20.30 guntas of land of Lingamma, was notified for acquisition, in the year 1974. Villages together were acquired and hundreds of Ops ensued, in different Courts, at different points of time. This Court has also dealt with them, in A.S.No.1472 of 1982 and A.S.Nos.1496 of 1983 and batch. The Civil Court had enhanced the compensation marginally, and the same appears to have been upheld by this Court, extending the relief of solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum, in addition to other statutory benefits. The Circumstances under which the present O.P. was inquired into, by the ACB, is not immediately before this Court. Suffice it to say that, after conclusion of the inquiry, the O.P. was taken up for trial. Not only Lingamma was shown as claimant No.9, but also the application in I.A.No.43 of 1999, filed by the petitioner, under Order 23 C.P.C., was allowed, on 24-10-2000. The manner in which the petitioner has been pursuing the remedy, is reflected from the correspondence, undertaken by him, from time to time. For instance, in the representation made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, on 11-02-1997, he made the following request, after making reference to the various steps. “…I therefore pray to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of A.P., may kindly direct the authorities concerned, to disburse the payment in the O.P.Nos.500/85 to 532/85 on the file of Hon’ble Subordinate Judge Court, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District, for which act of kindness we shall be much grateful to your Lordship”. “…I therefore pray to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of A.P., may kindly direct the authorities concerned, to disburse the payment in the O.P.Nos.500/85 to 532/85 on the file of Hon’ble Subordinate Judge Court, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District, for which act of kindness we shall be much grateful to your Lordship”. He had approached the Vigilance Commissioner of Government of Andhra Pradesh, as well as this Court, through similar proceedings. Acting on the representation made by the petitioner, the Member Secretary of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, addressed letter dated 02-07-1997 to the District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, which reads as under: “With reference to the petition submitted by Sri B. Ramesh of Mahabubnagar District addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, I am directed to forward the same to you. Pleade enquire into this matter and do the needful. According to the information of the applicant, he approached you and no action taken. Please call for the report from the Sub-Judge, Nagarkurnool, about the state of the matter. After the receipt of your report, I am directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Executive Chairman. Treat the matter as urgent”. The learned District Judge, in turn, intiated steps, and the same resulted in filing of the supplementary award dated 22-11-1976 by the Assistant Government Pleader, through a memo. The respondent made an effort to delete the name of the petitioner and for some others, from the array of parties in the O.P. The reason pleaded by him is that, the order of original reference did not contain their names. The application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. When a detailed procedure is prescribed under Order I C.P.C., be it, as regards addition or deletion of parties, filing of an application under Section 151 C.P.C for the same relief was totally untenable. Secondly, the respondent did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, in support of his contention. The order in the I.A., has the effect of closing the avenues of the petitioner; and dismissal of the O.P., as regards his claim. Such a serious step could have been taken only on the basis of acceptable pleadings, evidence, and on settled principles of law. Except making reference to various steps, which the O.P. has undergone, the trial Court did not make reference, to any material. Such a serious step could have been taken only on the basis of acceptable pleadings, evidence, and on settled principles of law. Except making reference to various steps, which the O.P. has undergone, the trial Court did not make reference, to any material. It is not as if that the petitioner was conferred with any additional benefit on the basis of his being included in the array of parties in the O.P. The ACB, which inquired into the matter, did not take any exception to the presence of the petitioner, as a party. No discrepancy in this regard was noticed in the enquiry which proceeded for years together. Further, even if the contention of the respondent is to be accepted, it would have been, at the most, a case of there not being any request for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Things would have been different altogether, had the avenues for the aggrieved parties remained static, confining the benefits of reference only to those, who filed applications under Section 18. Addition of Section 28-A to the Act, by the Parliament, brought extensive relief to the owners of acquired lands. Even if a land owner remained totally dormant and inactive, for years together, till the reference, made at the instance of the owners of other lands, acquired through the same notification, is disposed of, he is conferred with the right to seek the benefit, under the decree without undertaking the ordeal of any trial, or the trouble of adducing evidence. Viewed in this Context, it can be said that the facility to seek enhancement of compensation is made easily accessible. When such is the extended horizon of law, there was absolutely no basis for the respondent to seek deletion of the name of the petitioner from the array of parties, much less, for the trial Court, to order I.A.No.843 of 2004. This Court would have considered the feasibility of extending the same relief, under Section 28-A of the Act, had there been any marginal or slight upward revision. The O.P. itself was disposed of, even while the petitioner was making efforts, to seek remedy. It is rather astonishing to note that the trial Court answered the reference by upholding the award, without making any reference to oral or documentary evidence. The O.P. itself was disposed of, even while the petitioner was making efforts, to seek remedy. It is rather astonishing to note that the trial Court answered the reference by upholding the award, without making any reference to oral or documentary evidence. The fact, that the ACB inquiry was ordered into the matter, appears to have had its own effect upon the trial Court also, persuading it to be on the safe side. The judgments of this Court, which upheld enhancement of compensation for similar lands though filed, were not referred to. These factors, however, cannot take away or defeat the rights of the petitioner. The O.P. can be restored to the extent of the petitioner, leaving it open to him, to adduce evidence, as regards the enhancement of value, or for availing the additional benefits. The respondent can also put the petitioner to strict proof, as to his entitlement, as legal heir of the deceased-Lingamma. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the order in I.A.No.843 of 2004 is set aside. The O.P.No.202 of 2003 shall stand restored, only to the extent of the claim of the petitioner, notwithstanding its have been disposed of, through order dated 04-12-2006. The trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the matter, in relation to the lands of the petitioner, on merits, giving opportunity to both the parties, within three months, from the date of receipt of the record. There shall be no order as to costs.