P. Susheela Franklin And 5 Others vs A Naveen Kumar Reddy And 16 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 368 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2747 of 2022

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the

learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda, in

I.A. No.454/2022 in L.G.O.P. No.985 of 2017, the present Civil

Revision Petition is filed.

Vide impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the

implead application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and

allowed them to come on record as party respondent Nos.15 to

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the

petitioners herein have filed O.P. under the provisions of

A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act for evicting the

respondents therein. That the LGOP was originally filed in the

year 2014 and thereafter the same was re-numbered as LGOP

No.985 of 2017. That respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed

I.A. No.454/2022 seeking to implead themselves in the said

LGOP as party respondents, at the fag end of the trial, only with

a view to protract the matter. Learned counsel has stated that

respondents 1 to 3 herein, fully knowing well about the

pendency of the LGOP, have purchased the property from their

vendors who are already parties to the said LGOP. Further, the

learned counsel has stated that the respondents 1 to 3 herein AAR, J

have purchased the property fully knowing well that the order of

injunction was subsisting against their vendor viz., Donthi

Madhava Reddy vide order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the

Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act

(Principal District Judge), Warangal in I.A. No.175 of 2019 in

L.G.O.P.No.985 of 2017. Therefore, passing of the impugned

order by the learned District Judge is without any legal basis

and prayed this Court to allow the present CRP. In support of

his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the

judgment of the High Court of Madras in Mohideen Sahib v.

A Amena Bi1.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

has stated that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and

therefore any adjudication of rights in the LGOP, without

impleading them, will adversely affect them. Since these

respondents are not made as parties to the LGOP, in case any

adverse orders are passed against them, their rights will be

effected. Therefore, they were constrained to file the Implead

Petition. Learned counsel has stated that the order passed by

the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality

and the trial Court has rightly allowed the I.A. filed by

respondents 1 to 3, duly taking into account that they are

necessary and proper parties to the LGOP.

1 2007 (1) CTC 505 AAR, J

Perused the record.

Admittedly, the present LGOP has been filed by the

petitioners herein against respondents 4 to 17 herein and the

same is pending adjudication. Respondents 1 to 3 herein have

purchased the property from their vendors, who are already

parties to LGOP and therefore they have filed

I.A. No.175 of 2019 seeking to implead themselves in the said

LGOP. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

respondents, in the adjudication of rights of the parties in said

LGOP, the vendors of respondents 1 to 3 may not evince any

interest in prosecuting the LGOP as they have already sold the

property to respondents 1 to 3 herein, in which event, the rights

of respondents 1 to 3 herein will be adversely affected.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that respondents

1 to 3 herein are proper and necessary parties and the trial

Court has rightly allowed the present I.A. filed by respondents 1

to 3 herein.

Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the present I.A. is filed only to protract the

matter is concerned, the ends of justice would be met if the trial

Court is directed to dispose of the main LGOP itself within a

fixed time-frame.

Accordingly, the Special Tribunal under A.P. Land

Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (Principal District Judge), Warangal AAR, J

is directed to dispose of L.G.O.P.No.985 of 2017, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is

made clear that in case the respondents 1 to 3 herein want to

file any counter they shall file the counter in the main LGOP,

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order or file a memo adopting the counter filed by their

vendors. The respondents 1 to 3 shall not protract the matter

beyond the period stipulated by this Court by taking

unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 27.01.2023.

sur/Pvt

Issue C.C. in two days.