Sri Satya Sai Social Service ... vs Chimpiri Siddi Rami Reddy
2021 Latest Caselaw 4148 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                   I.A.No.1 of 2021
                                          in
                            WRIT APPEAL No.426 of 2021
                                         and
                            WRIT APPEAL No.426 of 2021
                             (Through Video-Conferencing)

Sri Sri Sri Satya Sai Social Service Society, regd. Vide No.
345/96, rep. by its Secretary P. Rama Krishna Reddy,
S/o. Bali Reddy, aged about 68 years, R/o.Kuppuruvaripalle
Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District                              ... Appellant

                                       Versus

Chimpiri Siddi Rami Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy,
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Upparapalli village, Railwaykodur Mandal,
Kadapa District, and others                                           ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant               :          Ms. M.L. Neelima

Counsel for respondent No.1              :         Mr. Balaji Medamalli

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5        :         Government Pleader for Revenue

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

                                Dt: 21.10.2021

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application seeking leave to appeal against the order

dated 22.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.16956 of 2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Challenge in W.A.No.426 of 2021, which is an intra-court appeal, is to the

order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16956 of

2020, directing official respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein (respondent Nos.4 & 5 in this

appeal), i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet Revenue Division, Rajampet,

Kadapa District and the Tahsildar, Railwaykodur Mandal, Railwaykodur, Kadapa HCJ & CPK,J

W.A.No.426 of 2021

District, not to disturb/dispossess the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) from

the property in question without following due process of law.

4. Ms. M.L. Neelima, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that as a matter

of fact, the appellant herein, and not the writ petitioner, is in possession of the

property in question and a civil dispute is going on between the parties, wherein after

dismissal of the suits, appeals are presented before the Court of the III Additional

District Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District. She would submit that the impugned

order may adversely affect the appellant's case before the Court of the III Additional

District Judge, Rajampet and, therefore, the appellant has preferred this appeal along

with an application seeking leave to appeal.

5. A plain reading of the order passed by the learned single Judge would indicate

that nothing has been observed therein in respect of title of either the appellant or the

writ petitioner. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant is ill-founded. Despite

that, we observe that nothing contained in the order passed by the writ court or in

this judgment shall be treated to be any observation on the merits of the dispute,

inter se, between the appellant and the writ petitioner, which is pending

consideration before the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Rajampet,

Kadapa District.

6. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2021 and the writ appeal stand disposed of. No

order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                                  C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
MRR