Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010302982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1611/2024 Between: 1. MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO(DIED), DIED 2. MOOTHA MANGARAJU, W/O. LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.14-7-2/1, SATYA PRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA 3. MOOTHA SRILATHA,, D/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, D. NO. 14-7-2/1, SATYAPRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA. 4. MOOTHA MIDUN,, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BUSINESS, D. NO. 14-7-2/1, SATYAPRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA. 5. ALAPATI DEEPTHI,, D/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D. NO. 14-7-2/1, SATYAPRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA. 6. MORTHA PRASAD BABU @ SATYA PRASANNAM,, S/O.LATE MANIKYAM, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O.SATYA PRASANNA NAGAR, KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY, FOREST, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FEDERATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, LALAPET, HYDERABAD. 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FEDERATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, LALAPET, HYDERABAD. 6. GODAVARI COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED, REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER, ALCOT GARDENS, RAJAHMUNDRY EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order and decree made in I.A.No.430/2023 in O.P.No.53/1993, dated.8.12.2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District and consequently to order the Court below to order payment of compensation basing on proper calculations. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit the amount of compensation arrived at by the Petitioners/Claimants in their Memo of Calculation pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the interests of justice and pass any order or orders as the Hon’ble Court thinks deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to order to implead me as 6th petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition in the interests of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR 2. K A NARASIMHAM 3. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM 2. . 3. The Court made the following: :ORDER: Heard Sri K.A. Narasimham, and Sri Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel representing respondents 1 to 5. 2. Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel, brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.6-Godavari Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited is not in existence and, in fact, respondent No.4-Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation is looking after the affairs of respondent No.6. Page 4 of 7 3. Assailing the order, dated 08.12.2013 in I.A.No.430 of 2023 in O.P.No.53 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, the petitioners/claimants filed the above revision. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Reference Court did not even consider the calculation memo filed by the petitioners. The Reference Court passed the order, taking into consideration one calculation memo filed by respondent No.2, ignoring the other. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 would fairly submit that the petitioners, as well as respondents 2 and 4 filed respective calculation memos. However, the reference court did not consider all the calculations memos by the respective parties. 6. In para 16 of the order, the Reference Court observed as follows: “16. In fact the Hon’ble High court gave directions to both parties to file their calculations memo within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order in W.P.No.19915/2018. But the petitioners filed their neat copy of calculation memo before this court on 04.09.2023 by taking time for one reason or the other which causes some delay. Further the Hon’ble High court directed this court to ascertain the exact compensation amount payable by the respondents within four weeks after filing calculation memos. But my predecessor of this court submitted a letter dated 01-08-2023 to the Hon’ble High court seeking two months time to dispose of the matter by explaining the reasons for delay and in the mean time he was transferred on promotion. I have taken over the charge on 29-11-2023 and immediately I heard the matter on 06-12-2023 and pronouncing orders today.” 7. Infact, the Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 in the Reference Court filed a calculation memo with two illustrations; petitioners filed a calculation memo, and respondent No.4 filed a separate calculation memo. 8. As seen from illustrations-1 and 2 of the calculation memo filed by the LAO & Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, the amount payable to the petitioners is Rs.16,47,00001/- and Rs.51,69,80,556/- respectively; whereas as per the petitioners’ calculation memo, the amount payable is Rs.156,60,00,000/- and as per the calculation memo filed by respondent No.4, the amount is Rs.13,37,65,333/-. 9. However, as observed supra, the learned Reference Court, while passing the order, failed to discuss the other calculations. The reference court, in the considered opinion of this court, disposed of the reference due to the directions. It is the duty of the reference court to consider the calculations and arrive at a correct conclusion. As seen from the order, no opportunity was afforded to the parties. 10. The order under revision needs to be interdicted. This Court, in fact, did not narrate all the particulars in the order since this Court believes that the issue requires reconsideration by the Reference Court. Page 6 of 7 11. Given the discussion supra, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. The order, dated 08.12.2023 in I.A.No.438 of 2023 in O.P.No.53 of 1993 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, shall pass a fresh order considering the calculation memos filed by the petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No.4, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if necessary by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. All the parties shall cooperate with the Court. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 19.06.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI C.R.P.No.1611 of 2024 19.06.2026 IKN