APHC010439372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23382/2025 Between: 1. BELLANA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE BELLANA NAGA NARENDRA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION AND BUSINESS, R/O. GAJAPATHINAGARAM T AND M, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent issued three notices vide RC.No.2112/2025/E2, dated 16-07-2025, 31-07-2025 and 06-08-2025, thereby directed the petitioner to appear before their authorities for enquiry and adduce 2 both oral and documentary evidence to supporting to the complaint petition, without there being any authority of law and jurisdiction, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently setting aside the notices issued by the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.2112/2025/E2, dated 16-07-2025, 31-07- 2025 and 06-08-2025, and pass IA 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 Peased to direct the 2nd respondent not to conduct any enquiry in respect of family properties and not to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties in any event of manner, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23382 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent issued three notices vide RC.No.2112/2025/E2, dated 16-07-2025, 31-07-2025 and 06-08-2025, thereby directed the petitioner to appear before their authorities for enquiry and adduce both oral and documentary evidence to supporting to the complaint petition, without there being any authority of law and jurisdiction, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of Natural Justice, consequently setting aside the notices issued by the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.2112/2025/E2, dated 16-07-2025, 31-07- 2025 and 06-08-2025, and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Sri J.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 3. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, issued an impugned notice to the Writ Petitioner to participate in an inquiry prompted by a 4 complaint from Smt. Janaki Vasundhara, the wife of the late Dr.J.Y. Raju, from Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam. She filed a complaint against Smt. Bellana Lakshmi and requested the Honorable District Collector to initiate an inquiry through the jurisdictional R.D.O. and Tahsildar regarding all revenue mutations and to prevent any further alienation or encumbrance of family properties. 4. However, Smt. Janaki Vasundhara was not included as a party in these proceedings. In her absence, this Court is unable to adjudicate the writ petition, as she is considered a proper and necessary party. 5. The impugned notice was issued at the instance of one Mrs. Janaki Vasundhara, who is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. However, without impleading this proper and necessary party, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition and sought a writ of mandamus to quash the impugned notice. The non-joinder of Mrs.Janaki Vasundhara, a proper and necessary party, renders the Writ Petition defective. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of a proper and necessary party. 6. While issuing the order, learned counsel for petitioner did not make any request for time, to implead the necessary party. 5 7. Accordingly, for failure to implead proper and necessary parties, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 04.09.2025 KBN 6 76 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 23382 OF 2025 Date: 04-09-2025 KBN