APHC010333812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 783 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be against the Court order dt.25- 03-2025 in WP No.6408 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: Sri Mallela Kalyan Chakravarthi, S/o. Mallela Ramachandraiah, Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.3-1, Kapu Street, Yerpedu Village and Mandal, Tirupathi District. ...Appellant AND C Raghava Reddy, S/o. Late Muniswamy Reddy, Aged about 76 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12-432, 2nd Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. C Sujatha, W/o. C. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 74 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12-432, 2nd Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. C Sasidhar, S/o. C. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12-432, 2nd Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. M Kavitha, W/o. C.Sasidhar, Aged about 42 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12- 432, 2nd Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C Sravathi. W/o. M.P. Sasidhar Reddy, Aged about 43 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12-432, 2nd Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati District. Presently residing at 16211 SE Bellevue, Washington - 98008, USA. 6. M P Sasidhar Reddy, S/o. M.P. Shankar Reddy, Aged about 75 years, R/o. D.N. 19-12-432, 2nd District. Presently residing at 16211 SE 2nd Bellevue, 98008, USA. Floor, Bairagipetteda, Tirupati, Tirupati Washington - ...Writ Petitioners/Respondents 7. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, District. 8. The District Collector, Tirupathi District, Tirupathi. 9. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi District. The Tahsildar, Yerpedu, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupathi District. ...Respondents/Respondents Revenue Amaravati, Guntur Srikalahasti Revenue Division 10. lA NO: 4 OF 2C)?R Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Order dt.25.03.2025 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K KOUTILYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: I representing SRI V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 10: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: praying that in the circumstances stated in WP No.6408/2025 pending disposal of writ SRI D VIGNESHWAR REDDY APHC010333812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 783/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside the impugned order dt.25-03-2025 in WP No.6408 of 2025 and pass such Between; 1.SRI MALLELA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI, S/0. MALLELA RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.3-1, KAPU STREET, YERPEDU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. C RAGHAVA REDDY, S/0. LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND FLOOR, BAIRAGIPETTEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2. C SUJATHA, W/0. C. RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND FLOOR, BAIRAGIPETTEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. C SASIDHAR, S/O. C. RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND FLOOR, BAIRAGIPETTEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. M KAVITHA, W/0. C.SASIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND FLOOR, BAIRAGIPETTEDA, TIRUPATI, 2 TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. C SRAVATHI, W/0. M.P. SASIDHAR REDDY YEARS AGED ABOUT 43 FLOOR, PRESENTLY R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND BAIRAGIPETTEDA,IRUPATI, TIMPATI DISTRICT. RESIDING AT 16211 SE BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON - 98008, USA. 6. M P SASIDHAR REDDY, S/0. M.P. SHANKAR REDDY, ABOUT 75 YEARS, BAIRAGIPETTEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 16211 SE 2ND BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON - 98008, AGED R/0. D.N. 19-12-432, 2ND FLOOR, USA. 7. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. 9. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 10.THE TAHSILDAR, YERPEDU, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ....RESPONDENT(S): lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Order dt. 25.03.2025 in W.P.No.6408 of 2025 in filing this writ appeal challenging the same to be set aside; and pass such lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file Writ Appeal against Order dt.25.03.2025 in WP No.6408/2025 and pass such lANO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 3 may be pleased to condone the delay of 25 days in filling the Writ Appeal against Order dt.25.03.2025 in WP No.6408/2025 and pass such lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Order dt.25.03.2025 in WP No.6408/2025 passed by the learned single judge of this Hon’ble Court pending disposal of writ appeal and pass such Counselfor the Appellant: 1.K KOUTILYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.VR REDDY KOVVURI 4 Th© Court mSd© th© follOWiriQ JudQm©ntl (per Hon'bleSn justice R RaghunandanRao) The 1®‘ respondent herein had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.522 of 2025, contending that his application for survey and sub division of the land was not being carried out by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupathi District, in relation to Ac.0.30 cents of land, in Sy.No.213/2, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupathi District. The Tahsildar presented herself personally before this Court and stated that an endorsement, dated 05.11.2024 pasted in the field and a message was also sent to the mobile of the applicant. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that the 1®* respondent had approached this Court with unclean hands. was Thereafter, the 1®* respondent herein again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.4464 of 2025, contending that the endorsements of 05.11.2024 would have to be set aside. At the stage of admission, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue took an objection that there are five applicants whereas only the 1®* respondent, who is one of the applicants had approached the Court and as such, the 1®' respondent could not have challenged all five rejection endorsements. Learned counsel for the 1®‘ respondent sought to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition by making all the affected parties as Writ Petitioners. This liberty was granted and the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, by an Order dated 20.02.2025. 2. Thereafter, the 1®‘ respondent along with the respondents 2 to 6 had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.6408 of 2025, contending that the objections raised by the Tahsildar are untenable and the F-line application of the respondents, dated 29.10.2024, seeking survey and fixation of the boundaries should be considered and necessary survey should be conducted after issuing notices to all the affected persons. This Writ Petition was disposed of by an Order dated 25.03.2025. 3. 5 Aggrieved by the said Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 25.03.2025, the appellant has moved this Writ Appeal. The appellant also filed I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking leave to move the Writ Appeal on the ground that he was not a party to the Writ Petition though he is a necessary party. 4. 5. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D. Vigneshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Though the various submissions have been made on both sides including submissions relating to pending civil disputes, this Court does not propose to go into the said issues as the Writ Appeal is being disposed of on a different ground. The 1®' respondent, had impleaded the father of the appellant as a respondent, in W.P.No.522 of 2025. Thereafter, the father of the appellant was not mentioned or impleaded, in W.P.No.4464 of 2025. Similarly, neither the present appellant nor his father was made a party to W.P.No.6408 of 2025. Sri Vigneshwar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that neither the appellant nor his father were necessary parties in as much as they had no right over the land, it is only the respondents 1 to 6 who had any claim over the property and as such, non-inclusion of the appellant or his father would not be fatal to the case. 6. A perusal of the record placed before this Court would show that there are disputes between the father of the appellant and the respondents in relation to the aforesaid Ac.0.30 cents of land. It may also be recorded that the father of the appellant had lost the suit before the Trial Court and had been given protection in relation to 140 yards of land before this Court by way of an Orderdated 22.11.2004,in C.M.P.No.14929of 2003 in A.S.No.1459 of 2003. 7. Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the service of the notice on the appellant “on account of his illness due to which he is 8. 6 confined to bed” as one of the affected parties for the conduct of a survey, in pursuance of the directions of this Court, dated 25.03.2025. Non-inclusion of the appellant or his father in the array of parties has resulted in the passing of an Order that is said to have affected the rights of the appellant. This contention requires further enquiry. 9. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate to set aside the Order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 25.03.2025, in W.P.No.6408 of 2025 and remand the matter back to the Learned Single Judge for further hearing after an opportunity is given to the appellant herein to make out his case before the Learned Single Judge. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order 11. as to costs. For the aforesaid reasons, the I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed for the granting of leave is also allowed. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/-S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6to^fficer SE To, Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Revenue Department, State of Andhra 1. The 2. The Principal Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Pradesh 3. The District Collector, Tirupathi District, Tirupathi. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti Revenue Division Tirupathi District. 5. The Tahsildar, Yerpedu, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupathi District. 6. One CC to Sri. K Koutilya Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate [OPUC] r 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. The Section Officer, Writ( Non-Service) Section, High court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Three CD Copies 10. 11. GSC 3 HIGH COURT DATED: 14/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 783 OF 2025 g 21JUl2ffi5 s ^ . Current Sacnon .^ ALLOWING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS