Marri Santhi vs Gudala Appalaraju Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3929 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.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