ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) : The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I.A.No.89 of 2023 in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2020 dated 17.08.2023 on the file of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam to implead the petitioner as one of the party in L.A.O.P.No.4 of 2020 …” 2. a) Petitioner-temple represented by its Priest filed the above writ petition. In the affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that one Cheruvu Sarojanamma, W/o Appalaswamy Naidu, absolute owner of Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.28/1 of Rajayyapeta village, Nakkapalli Mandal donated the land in favor of Sri Sitarama Swamy Temple and Grama Devatha about five decades ago. After donating the land to the temple, Sarojanamma lived in the village and died in the year 1996. She had no issues and her husband pre-deceased her. The property was mutated in the name of deity, and pattadar passbook was also issued. The petitioner and his father being the priests used to pay land revenue. The petitioner’s father used to conduct auction of leasehold rights and the income derived therefrom has been utilized for conducting Rama Navami Utsavam and Grama Devatha festivals etc., every year. The deponent is discharging the duties as a priest and conducting festivals with the support of village elders and others. b) The land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), APIIC, Visakhapatnam vide Award No.25 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017. One Ch.Swamy Naidu, claiming to be the son of the late Sarojanamma made a claim before the LAO. The deponent and other villagers including respondents 3 to 6 filed objections petition before the LAO. Respondents 3 to 6 filed W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017 and the same was disposed of. LAO referred the matter to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam, and the same was numbered as LAOP No.4 of 2020. In the said LAOP, Ch.Swamy Naidu, was shown as claimant and Pikki Rambabu, Y.Appalaraju, Pikki Nookaraju and Y.Nagesh as rival claimants. LAO referred the matter to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam, and the same was numbered as LAOP No.4 of 2020. In the said LAOP, Ch.Swamy Naidu, was shown as claimant and Pikki Rambabu, Y.Appalaraju, Pikki Nookaraju and Y.Nagesh as rival claimants. The temple was not shown as a rival claimant. Hence, I.A.No.89 of 2013 in LAOP No.4 of 2020 was filed to implead the temple represented by the priest as a proposed rival claimant. The said petition was dismissed by the authority on 17.08.2023. Assailing the same, the above writ petition is filed. 3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1st respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that during enquiry Ch.Swamy Naidu filed a claim petition before the LAO for payment of compensation in respect of Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.288/1. The said Swamy Naidu did not produce any valid documentary evidence, except the copies of revenue records, 10 (1) adangal copies. Some of the villagers filed representation stating that the land belonged to Ramalayam and that they did not know any person by name Cheruvu Sarojanamma. They further stated that Ch.Sarojanamma’s name was added in computer adangal by deleting the name of Pikki Appanna (father of petitioner), who was Dharma karta of Ramalayam, but they also failed to produce any documentary evidence. b) Pikki Rambabu and others have filed W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, wherein an interim order was passed on 21.02.2017 not to make any payment either to 5th or 7th respondents therein and eventually, W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017 was disposed of on 13.03.2019 directing the LAO to refer the dispute under Section 64 of the Act, if the LAO finds that there is a real dispute as to title or entitlement of compensation. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the authority, and an amount of Rs.3,48,46,585/- was deposited vide Cheque No.265555 dated 02.06.2020 of SBI, Industrial Estate Branch, Visakhapatnam. The petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings and I.A. was filed after a lapse of 3 years of award and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. 2nd Respondent filed a separate counter affidavit. In the affidavit, it was contended that the 2nd respondent was the son of Sarojanamma. The petitioner is aware of the Land Acquisition proceedings and I.A. was filed after a lapse of 3 years of award and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. 2nd Respondent filed a separate counter affidavit. In the affidavit, it was contended that the 2nd respondent was the son of Sarojanamma. If the petitioner is interested in payment of compensation, the course open is to make a representation to the LAO, who, in turn, refers the matter to the Tribunal. Pikki Rambabu, Appalaraju, Nookaraju and Nagesh, shown as rival claimants are representing the cause of temple/deity and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Vamsi Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for 1st respondent, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions, as per the pleadings, in affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as well as learned senior counsel, reiterated the contentions as per the pleadings in respective counter affidavits. 7. Now, the point of consideration is: Whether the order dated 17.08.2013 in I.A.No.89 of 2013 in LAOP No.4 of 2020 on the file of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam is sustainable? 8. As seen from the pleadings and material available on record, there is no dispute that Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.228/1 of Rajayyapeta village, Nakkapalli Mandal was acquired under Award No.25 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017. Learned senior counsel placed a copy of the Award before this Court during arguments. 9. In the Award, in respect of Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.288/1, the name of pattadar/enjoyer is shown as Cheruvu Sarojanamma, W/o Appalaswamy Naidu. The LAO in the award noted that MPTC and other villagers of Rajayyapeta village have filed a representation stating that the land Ac.19.20 cents in S.No.288/1 belongs to Ramalayam and for so many decades, the auction has been conducted to lease the land and the amounts paid by the lessee is being utilized for festivals conducted for Ramalayam and other developments of Ramalayam. LAO also noted about the filing of W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017. 10. LAO also noted about the filing of W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017. 10. In W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, the Division Bench of this Court recorded the following findings: “Prima facie, the land was registered in the name of Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha in the revenue records, which prima facie establish that the land belongs to Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha. But the fifth respondent claiming to be the owner of the property, being the son of the original done – Smt. Cheruvu Sarojanamma filed claim before the authorities under the 2013 Act in the award enquiry. When the property was donated by executing a gift deed, the said Smt. Cheruvu Sarojanamma ceased to be the owner of the property and it vests on Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha. Therefore, at best, Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha temples are entitled to claim compensation, subject to proof of their title to the property before competent authority. The sixth respondent in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit admitted that there is a dispute regarding the title of the property, which can be resolved by competent authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.” Eventually, the W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017 was disposed of observing that the Land Acquisition Officer is at liberty to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, if the Land Acquisition Officer finds that there is a real dispute as to title or entitlement of compensation. 11. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute to the authority. In the reference, Swamy Naidu is shown as claimant and Pikki Rambabu, Y.Appalaraju, Pikki Nookaraju and Y.Nagesh are shown as rival claimants. It is pertinent to mention here that even the rival claimants are also contending that land belongs to the temple and the compensation is to be paid to the temple. The rival claimants are not claiming title or compensation onto themselves. The Land Acquisition Officer, having observed the contentions and order in W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, for the reasons best known, did not array the temple as party claimant in the reference, which led the petitioner-temple represented by its priest to file the present application before the authority. 12. The rival claimants are not claiming title or compensation onto themselves. The Land Acquisition Officer, having observed the contentions and order in W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, for the reasons best known, did not array the temple as party claimant in the reference, which led the petitioner-temple represented by its priest to file the present application before the authority. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the authority proceeded on the ground that no claim was filed by the petitioner before the LAO and hence, the application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here that before the LAO objections were filed stating that land acquired belonged to the temple. In W.P. (PIL) No.30 of 2017, it was canvassed that the land belonged to Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha. Thus, from the beginning, it has been canvassed that the land belonged to the temple and hence, the temple should have been added as a party respondent in the reference. 13. The temple represented by the priest filed the present application. The Deity, per se, will not file the application seeking impleadment, and hence, the application was filed by the priest representing the Deity seeking impleadment as party respondent. Even the priest is not claiming title or compensation. The rival claimants or the priest have been contending that the temple is entitled to compensation. 14. In Madhumathi Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC, Hyderabad and others, 2018 (3) ALD 222 , the revision filed by the unsuccessful litigant before the reference Court seeking impleadment, after considering the judgments of the Apex Court judgments, learned single Judge of the composite High Court concluded that the revision petitioner was in possession of the property and person interested will implead herself in the reference under Section 30 of the Act. 15. Applying the ratio laid down in Madhumathi’s case, case at hand, rival claimants and the priest of the temple have been contending that the subject land belonged to Sri Seetharama Swamy Vari Temple and Grama Devatha and the compensation should be paid to the temple. In fact, as observed supra, LAO ought to have arrayed the temple as one of the claimants. The Deity should be represented by a living person. The deponent is not claiming any independent right over the subject land. 16. In fact, as observed supra, LAO ought to have arrayed the temple as one of the claimants. The Deity should be represented by a living person. The deponent is not claiming any independent right over the subject land. 16. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 17.08.2023 in I.A.No.89 of 2023 in LAOP No.4 of 2020 on the file of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam is set aside. I.A.No.89 of 2023 is allowed. Sri Sitarama Swamy Vari Temple and Gramadevatha, represented by its Priest Pikki Nagaraju is impleaded as 5th Rival Claimant in LAOP No.4 of 2020. Learned authority shall take necessary steps in this regard. During the hearing, learned senior counsel urged that since the award is of the year 2017, LAOP No.4 of 2020 may be ordered to be disposed of expeditiously. The request made by the senior counsel, in the facts of this case, in the opinion of this court, is genuine. Accordingly, the learned Authority shall dispose of the LAOP No.4 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.