HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.431 of 2020
(Through video conferencing)
Tekuru Raja Kumar Kumara Swamy ... Appellant
Versus
GandlaSreedevi, W/o.GandlaNagendra
Babuand (4) others ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Sri C.Prakash Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Venkata Reddy Kodumury
Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 : Govt. Pleader, Revenue
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt:06.01.2021 (ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ) The appellant was not a party-respondent in the Writ Petition, out of which this Writ Appeal arises. Leave to appeal was granted on 04.01.2021.
2. The sole contention advanced by Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was a necessary party in the writ proceedings and the same will be evidenced by a bare perusal of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, wherein it was mentioned that the appellant as well as one Sujatha were also the children of the father of the writ petitioner.
3. The writ petition was filed with the grievance that the respondents had not mutated the land in question in favour of the writ petitioner and not issued title deed-cum-e-passbook. The operative portion of the order assailed in this Writ Appeal reads as follows:
2 HCJ & CPKJ
W.A.No.431 of 2020
"Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Form 6A through on-line, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such application, the 4th respondent shall consider the same, as per the provisions of ROR Act, after issuing notices to concerned persons and pass appropriate orders within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the application. No costs."
4. It is submitted by Mr.C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, that since the appellant was not a party respondent, his case is not being considered, though according to the case of the writ petitioner itself, the land is ancestral property.
5. Sri Venkata Reddy Kodumury, counsel for respondent No.1, has submitted that the land on which mutation is sought was gifted to respondent No.1 by her father.
6. We will not go into the aforesaid contentions in this Writ Appeal and we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be sub-served, if we make it clear that the 4th respondent in the writ petition would also issue notice to the appellant and Ms.Sujatha, before proceeding with the matter as directed by the learned single Judge. Ordered accordingly.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J GM/MRR