K Damodharam K. Damu vs Bollini Subramanyam Naidu
2021 Latest Caselaw 2440 AP

       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.416 of 2021
                               (Through Video-Conferencing)

K. Damodharam @ K.Damu, S/o.K.Krishnaiah,
Aged 44 years, R/o. T.C. Agraharam, Padiredu Post,
Vadamalapeta, Chittoor District                                       ... Appellant
                                   Versus

Bollini Subramanyam Naidu, S/o. late B.Sanjeevi Naidu,
Aged about 72 years, R/o.1-130, Ravillavari Kandriga
Village & Post, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District,
and others                                                         ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Ms. S. Pranathi

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondent No.2 : G.P., for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. G. Ramana Rao Counsel for respondent No.5 : G.P., for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 : ---

Counsel for respondent No.9 : Mr. Udaya Kumar

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt:16.07.2021

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Ms. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for respondent

No.1/writ petitioner, Ms. P. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for

Endowments for respondent No.2, Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned standing

counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Mr. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for

respondent No.9.

This appeal is preferred by respondent No.7 in W.P.No.18850 of 2020

against the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge.

On a query of the Court, Ms. S. Pranathi has submitted that notice was

served upon respondent No.7/appellant. However, respondent No.7/appellant

did not enter appearance.

HCJ & NJS,J

Writ petition was disposed of with the following observations:

"6. The issues raised in the course of hearing and a perusal of the

pleadings would show that various questions of fact have been

raised in the present writ petition. This Court cannot go into these

questions of fact as to who is the owner of the land in question.

7. However, it does appear that the petitioner is in possession of

the land, through which the road is sought to be laid.

8. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the respondents, not to interfere with the

possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Ac.10.00

cents of land in Sy.No.414 and Ac.4.00 cents of land in Sy.No.417

except in accordance with the procedure established by law and

after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be

no order as to costs."

It is brought to our notice by Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu that subsequent

to the passing of the aforesaid order, respondent Nos.3 and 9 in the writ

petition had filed O.A.No.264 of 2021 before the Endowments Tribunal, against

the writ petitioner.

In view of the above, as also on the ground that the

appellant/respondent No.7 did not contest the proceedings before the learned

single Judge, we see no ground to entertain this appeal and, accordingly, the

same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J MRR