Smt. Macha Lakshmi Jagadamba, vs Somepalli Govindu,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3677 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.570 of 2021

                     (Taken up through video conferencing)


Smt. Macha Lakshmi Jagadamba,
W/o. M.V.V. Ratnam, Aged 38 years,
R/o. D.No.1-287-A, Eguva Amilepalli Village,
Amilepalle Post, Gurramkonda Mandal,
Chittoor District.
                                                             .. Appellant
      versus
Somepalli Govindu, S/o. Krishnappa,
Aged 67 years, Occ: Cultivation,
R/o. Eguva Amilepalli Village,
H/o Amilepalli, Gurramkonda (M),
Chittoor District, and others.
                                                             .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. K. Siva Rama Krishna, for Mr. N. Subba Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. A.P. Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5 : GP for Registration & Stamps

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Dt: 22.09.2021)

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing

Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. A.P. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

                                      2                                HCJ & NJS, J
                                                               W.A.No.570 of 2021

2. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 03.08.2021 passed by

the learned single Judge in W.P.No.15531 of 2021, whereby the writ

petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated 20.10.2020 in

W.P.No.18940 of 2020.

3. Mr. K. Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, submits that no notice was issued to the appellant, who was

arrayed as respondent No.5 in the writ petition, before disposal of the

writ petition. He also draws attention of the Court to the prayer made in

W.P.No.18940 of 2020 and the prayer made in W.P.No.15531 of 2021, to

demonstrate that the prayers made in the writ petitions are distinct and

accordingly, contends that it cannot be said that the order passed in

W.P.No.18940 of 2020 covers the issues involved in W.P.No.15531 of

2021, out of which the present appeal arises.

4. Mr. A.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1/writ petitioner, concedes that no notice was issued to the

appellant/respondent No.5 in the writ proceedings.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and have perused the materials on record.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered opinion that disposal of the writ petition without issuing notice

to the appellant/respondent No.5 has caused prejudice to her and,

therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be

sustained.

7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the order

under challenge, and the matter is remanded back to the learned single 3 HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.570 of 2021

Judge for fresh consideration. No costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                               NINALA JAYASURYA, J


                                                                              IBL
                           4                           HCJ & NJS, J
                                               W.A.No.570 of 2021

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No.570 of 2021

DATE: 22.09.2021

IBL