Proceeding Sheet vs In Tatikonda Papaiah And Others ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3587 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No: W.P.(S.R).No.26562 of 2021

                                  PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                        OFFICE
       DATE                                       ORDER
No.                                                                                         NOTE
      17.09.2021   MSM,J

                   This writ petition is filed for following prayer:
                             "To issue appropriate writ of   Mandamus declaring (1) the

                   proceedings of the District Collector and Magistrate Guntur,
                   particularly that part of the proceedings in R.C.No.1377/2004-C3
                   dated 16.08.2021 requesting the Superintendent of Police Urban
                   to cause detailed enquiry into the list of persons enclosed to CFR
                   No. 3065/2014 and the affidavit filed by the 400 persons before
                   the Special Mobile Court, Guntur and send a specific report on the
                   claim of the individuals that they had encroached the site in
                   question prior to year 2004 and there were attacks on them
                   forced them to leave the site occupied by them, as illegal and void
                   and consequently set aside the same and (2) further amending
                   the said proceedings by substituting that the case is at the stage
                   of the trial and summons issued to the accused in the place of the
                   case is under FIR stage and further directing the 4th respondent to

pay monetary relief to all the victims of 403 as mentioned in the complaint case in S.C.No.27/S/2020, corresponding to CFR No. 3056/2014, as per terms of the G.O.Ms.No.95, Social Welfare (CVPOA) Department dated 29.08.2016 (3) and further directing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, to provide and allot house sites to each of the 403 victims including the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.5 cents and also to get houses constructed thereon, as per the item Nos. 7 and 35 of the G.O.Ms.No.95 mentioned above and further declaring that part of the proceedings in Lr.Rc.No.G1/G9/2017, dated 06.08.2021 issued by the Director of Social Welfare, A.P, Tadepalli, Guntur District, wherein it is stated 'hence the number of victims in this case to the arrived with due enquiry by the enquiry officer," since the enquiry by the competent authorities was already conducted and the list of the names of the victims was already submitted to the District Collector, the respondent No.4 as illegal, void and consequently set aside the same and also further amending the said proceedings by substituting that the case is at the stage of trial having been numbered as SC No. 27/S/2020 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for Trial of SC, ST (POA) Cases -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, having been committed for trial by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, in the place of 'clarification' as the case is under FIR stage".

The following objections raised by the Registry:

1. Court fee to be paid for all petitioners.

2. Counsel for the petitioners sign is required in writ petition prayer.

3. Advocates G.Ps/S.C's appearing for respondents is to be mentioned in the writ petition docket.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has represented with following endorsement:-

"I submit that as there is common question of law and common question of action are involved in this case, a single set of court fees is paid. The petitioners relied upon the Judgment dated 29.12.1995, Andhra High Court in Tatikonda Papaiah and other Vs. Land Acquisition, reported in 1996(1) ALT 584. I therefore request the Hon'ble High Court to permit to file the petition on payment of single set of court fees".

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the cause of action in this writ petition is one and the same. Therefore payment of court fee on the single claim is sufficient in accordance with the principle laid down in decision of this Court reported in Tatikonda Papaiah and others Vs. Land Acquisition, reported in 1996(1) ALT 584. On the strength of the principle laid down by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has requested to direct the Registry to accept the court fee paid on the writ petition and register the same, if, it is otherwise in order.

In Tatikonda Papaiah and others Vs. Land Acquisition, the facts are as follows: Writ Petition filed to declare the proceedings No. B/737/91, dated 18.11.1992 of the 1st respondent/ Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapalli as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential direction to pass Award under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act.

In the said writ petition, an application was filed for impleading the petitioners therein as petitioners 2 to 220 therein. The same was objected by the 3rd respondent therein.

This Court while dealing with the said application observed that Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (in short "the Rules") have been framed by the High Court of the A.P by

exercising under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. As per Rule 16 of the Rules, it is open for the High Court either suo-motu or on application to strike down the names of the parties or to join them in order to effectively and completely adjudicate to settle the question in the writ petition, the rule is extracted in the said judgment also.

However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is open for the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in a proceeding pending in the court and he also submitted that notification is being challenged by the person, who was authorized to file writ petition on behalf of the aggrieved land losers is common and arises out of common question of action. As per Rule 4(a) two or more persons having a common cause of action may join in a single writ petition by paying a single set of court fee.

Learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the High Court of A.P in "Annam Adinarayana And Anr. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh and Anr, reported in 1957 An.W.R. 345", In the said case, it was held that "the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a proceeding in a Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The provision of Order 1 and 2 can be made applicable to the proceedings in a Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ordinarily, two or more persons can join in a single Petition to enforce separate claims, but whether the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact or whether though the right to relief claimed does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the cause of action, one petition is maintainable at their instance"

Similarly, In G. Kondaiah and Ors. v. The Managing Director, A.P. Agricultural Development Bank, Hyderabad and Ors.,( 1985 (3) APLJ 376) the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar type of situation held as follows:

"The legal position may now be summarised. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a proceeding in a Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The provisions of Order 1 and 2 can be invoked as far as they can be made

applicable to the proceedings in a Writ application under Article 226. Ordinarily, two or more person s cannot join in a single petition to enforce separate claims. But where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact or where, though the right to relief claimed does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the causes of action, one petition is maintainable at their instance".

Therefore, it is clear that more than one person can join when the relief is common and payment of one set of Court Fee on one claim is sufficient.

In the present case also all the petitioners are assailing the proceedings in R.C.No.1377/2004-C3 dated 16.08.2021 requesting the Superintendent of Police Urban to cause detailed enquiry into the list of persons enclosed to CFR No. 3065/2014 and the affidavit filed by the 400 persons before the Special Mobile Court, Guntur and send a specific report on the claim of individuals that they had encroached the site in question prior to 2004 etc.,

Therefore the relief claimed by the petitioners is on same cause of action, consequently payment of one set of court fee for all the petitioners/ claimants, though there are 400 persons is sufficient.

Therefore, the objection taken by the Registry is overruled, though the petitioners are more than one, payment of one set of court fee on the writ petition is sufficient as per Rule 4(a) if the rules as per the decisions cited supra and consequently Registry is directed to register the Writ Petition and accept one set of Court fee, if it is otherwise in order.

________ MSM,J KK