Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tekuru Raja Kumar Kumara Swamy, vs Gandla Sreedevi Tekuru. ... on 6 January, 2021
Bench: J K Maheshwari, C.Praveen Kumar
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
