Pruthvi Raj Sand, vs M/ S. Sri Venkateswara Traders,
2021 Latest Caselaw 959 AP

         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.5 of 2020

                        (Through video conferencing)

Pruthvi Raj Sand,
S/o Late Lal Chand Salesha,
Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Door No.24-22-4,
11th Line, Nalla Cheruvu, Guntur                       ..    Appellant


                                   Versus

M/s.Sri Venkateswara Traders,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Sri M.Venkateswara Reddy,
S/o M.Koti Reddy, aged about 40 years,
Plot No.D4/533, Market Yard, Guntur & 5 Others         ..    Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                   :    Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.1                 :    Mr.K.Madhava Reddy

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3            :    --

Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6           :    Mr.B.Prakasam, Standing
                                                 Counsel for Agricultural
                                                 Market Committee


                                 JUDGMENT

Dt : 18.02.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

1. Heard Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant. Also heard Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent - writ petitioner and Mr.B.Prakasam, learned counsel

appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 6. None appears for the Respondent

Nos.2 & 3.

2. The Writ Appeal is presented against an order, dated 04.12.2019,

passed in W.P.No.18553 of 2019. Leave to appeal was granted to the

appellant by an order passed on 07.01.2020.

3. Operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as

follows :

"3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted plot bearing No.D4/533, but as the same was not convenient, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.02.2019 to allot another plot in place of plot No.D4/533. In pursuance of the said representation made by the petitioner, a resolution dated 06.02.2019 was passed by the 5th respondent allotting plot No.B3/276 to the petitioner. But, the Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 submits that subsequently plot No.B3/276 was allotted to another trader and that six weeks' time is required to handover the said plot to the petitioner.

4. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to handover plot No.B3/276 to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

4. A perusal of the aforesaid order itself goes to show that a

submission was made by the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent

Nos.3 to 5 (Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the appeal) that plot No.B3/276 was

allotted to another trader.

5. Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant,

submits that the plot No.B3/276 was earlier numbered as Plot No.121 and

the same was purchased by the father of the appellant way back in the

year 1979. It is also submitted that the appellant was not aware of any

resolution taken by the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, to allot the

plot bearing No.B3/276 in favour of the respondent - writ petitioner and

the appellant came to know about the resolution of the Agricultural Market

Committee, Guntur to allot the plot to the respondent - writ petitioner

only when the order, dated 04.12.2019, passed by this court was brought

to the notice of the appellant. It is urged that when it was brought to the

notice of the learned Single Judge that Plot No.B3/276 was allotted to

another trader (the appellant herein), the writ petition ought not to have

been disposed of without such trader (the appellant herein) being brought

on record.

6. Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent - writ

petitioner submits that it is not certain as to whether Plot No.121 was

converted to Plot No.B3/276 and the writ petition was filed to implement

the resolution of the Agricultural Market Committee allotting the plot to

the respondent - writ petitioner and therefore, it was not necessary to

implead any other party.

7. The appellant herein had also challenged the order of allotment in

favour of the respondent - writ petitioner by filing a writ petition,

numbered as W.P.No.20324 of 2019, and the same has been directed to

be tagged along with the writ appeal by the learned Single Judge and

accordingly, the said writ petition also listed before this court.

8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of

the materials on record, we are inclined to accept the submission of the

learned counsel for the appellant that once the standing counsel had

submitted that plot No.B3/276 was allotted to somebody else, interest of

justice demanded that such a person was also brought on record by filing

appropriate application by the writ petitioner. However, the same was not

done and the learned Single Judge also did not consider that aspect of the

matter. We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and

circumstances of the case prejudice is caused to the appellant, he having

not been given an opportunity to contest the writ petition. We are of the

opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order has

resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

9. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 04.12.2019 passed in

W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and remand the matter for fresh consideration by

the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is allowed as indicated above. No

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                               C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr