IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.442 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Marri Santhi Chinnari,
W/o. Eswara Rao, aged 40 years,
Occ: Agriculture and Labour,
R/o. Peddagaruvu Village,
Cheemalapadu alias Kalyana Lova Panchayat,
Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,
and others.
.. Appellants
versus
Gudala Appalaraju Lakshmi,
W/o. Appalakonda, 55 years,
R/o. H.No.32, Nidugonda Village,
Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. M. Solomon Raju Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 : Mr. P. Subash, GP for Revenue ORAL JUDGMENT (Dt: 05.10.2021) (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners, and Mr. P. Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6.
2 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.442 of 2021
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17922 of 2020.
3. As the appellants were not parties to the writ petition, an application, being I.A.No.2 of 2021, was filed by them seeking leave to prefer the present appeal and the same was allowed vide order 25.08.2021. In the said order dated 25.08.2021, this Court had noted as follows:
"The case presented in this application is that the applicants belong to Kond tribal community and they have been cultivating about Ac. 7.00 cents of land in S.Nos.362- 2, 361-4 and 362-2, which are formed from old S.No.93 of Cheemalapadu Revenue Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, being in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last 20 years. In the first week of July 2021, three persons along with their followers came with a JCB with the intention of bulldozing the standing crops and bunds and an F.I.R. came to be filed. Writ petitioner No.1 is also claiming to be the owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring Ac.2.03 cents in S.No.362-2 and writ petitioner No.2 is claiming to be the owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land admeasuring Ac.1.93 cents in S.No.361-4 and Ac.2.08 cents in S.No.362-1 of Cheemalapadu Revenue Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
In the writ petition, reference is made to a summons under Section 113 Cr.P.C., vide 3 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.442 of 2021 M.C.No.06/2020/C, dated 21.09.2020, wherein the applicants are shown as "A-Party" and the sons of the writ petitioners are shown as part of "B-party". Though such reference is made, the applicants were not made parties to the writ proceedings.
In the aforesaid background, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants ought to have been made party to the proceedings for a fair adjudication.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted. I.A. is allowed and disposed of.
Registry will list W.A.No.442 of 2021 for admission after a week."
4. Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants are in possession of the lands in dispute, but they were not made parties to the writ petition. However, the learned single Judge had directed the revenue authorities not to interfere with the writ petitioners' possession and enjoyment in respect of the lands in dispute, thereby, recognizing the possession of the writ petitioners over the said lands. It is further submitted that if the appellants were made parties to the writ petition, they could have pointed out various aspects regarding possession and title of the lands in dispute. He, therefore, submits that as the appellants had been denied the opportunity of contesting the case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. Mr. M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, submits that the appellants had not assailed the proceedings under 4 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.442 of 2021 Section 107 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the order of the learned single Judge does not require any interference.
6. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge and also taking note of the fact that the appellants are parties to the proceedings in Mc.No.06/2020/C, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants ought to have been made party to the writ proceedings for a fair adjudication, as already noted in the order passed while granting leave.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration. The appellants stand arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 13 in the writ petition. Registry will make necessary corrections in the cause title of the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J IBL