APHC010463772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD I.A.Nos.1 & 2 OF 2026 IN/AND WRIT PETITION No.23677 OF 2025 Between: 1. GUMMADI RATNA RAJU, S/O LATE YESOBU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O MALKAPURAM VILLAGE, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DTCP, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THULLUR POLICE STATION, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI-MALKAPURAM JOINT GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 5. P. SAI SURYA TEJA, S/O P. RAJA RAO, AGED 30, R/O DOOR NO.7-17-67, MAIN ROAD, NEAR 4TH LINE, SRINAGAR COLONY, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT – 522 002. (RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDERS OF THE COURT VIDE I.A.1 OF 2026 DATED 05.05.2026) ...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 the Writ of Mandamus (or) any appropriate Writ, directing the Respondent No.2, for considering the representation dated 26.08.2025, and dispose it off at earliest in accordance with the Law, and consequently for restraining the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, from interfering with the Petitioners possession and enjoyment over the subject lands to an extent of Acres 4.00 cents situated in Sy.Nos. 58 (Acres 1.00 cents), 141/A/2 (Acres 1.00 cents) and in 264 (Acres 2.00 cents) under the limits of Velagapudi Revenue Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, and to grant such other reliefs which this Honble may deem fit and proper in to these circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RANJIT KUMAR BEEDA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: On 28.04.2026, at the request of Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner (through online), this Court had adjourned the admission hearing to enable him to appear in-person before the Court on 04.05.2026. On 04.05.2026, none appeared for the Writ Petitioner even on second call. Today also none appeared for the Writ Petitioner even after third call is made at the end of the Board. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel briefed by Sri P. Vivek, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 has raised an objection as regards the conduct of the Writ Petitioner and insisted that the matter should be proceeded. 2. Heard Sri M. Srinu Babu, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for MAUD and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Vivek, Ld. Counsel for the implead Applicant. 3. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “It is therefore I respectfully prayed that the Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus (or) any appropriate Writ, directing the Respondent No.2, for considering the representation dated 26.08.2025, and dispose it off at earliest in accordance with the Law, and consequently for restraining the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, from interfering with the Petitioners possession and enjoyment over the subject lands to an extent of Acres 4.00 cents situated in Sy.Nos. 8 (Acres 1.00 cents), 141/A/2 (Acres 1.00 cents) and in 264 (Acres 2.00 cents) under the limits of Velagapudi Revenue Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, and to grant such other reliefs which this Hon‟ble may deem fit and proper in to these circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice.” 4. Basing on the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, this Court had passed the following interim Order on 09.09.2025. “The petitioner………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………... 4 In the meanwhile, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land.” 5. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 are filed by an Applicant seeking impleadment as Respondent No.5 and also for vacating the Interim Order passed by this Court on 09.09.2025. These two Interlocutory Applications were heard at length on 09.04.2026. After hearing both the Applications at length, this Court had modified the earlier Interim Order dated 09.09.2025. This modified Order dated 09.04.2026 has a bearing in this Writ Petition, and therefore, the said Order is extracted in its entirety, which is as under: “Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneylu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ranjit Kumar Beeda, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Ms. Jouli Kavitha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sudhir, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.4 and Sri Posani Venteswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Vivek, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant seeking impleadment. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 2. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed by the Applicant seeking to be impleaded as Respondent No.5 in this Writ Petition. 3. I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed to vacate the interim order dated 09.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.23677 of 2025. 4. This Court has perused the Interim Order dated 09.09.2025. This Court has also perused the documents filed along with the above mentioned Interlocutory Applications. It is the submission of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the vendor of the Applicant herein i.e., one Smt. Namburu Sampurna has surrendered an extent of Ac.0.39 cents of land situated in Survey No.88 in Lingayapalem Village to the Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) under the Land Pooling Scheme (LPS). The CRDA, after preparing a layout, has allotted Plot No.21 in Block-B6 in Survey No.58 of Velagapudi Village to an extent of 390 square yards in terms of LPS to Smt. Namburu Sampurna.It is the submission of the Applicant that the Applicant herein has purchased the said plot from Smt. Namburu Sampurna by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.2023 bearing Document No.7522 of 2023. It is submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the CRDA, which 5 is the necessary party, has not been impleaded. He would submit that without impleading the necessary party, the Writ Petitioner herein has secured an Interim Order and had thereafter issued Notice of Contempt, thereby threatening and preventing the officials of the CRDA from developing the layout and from laying the road. 5. It is also submitted that the Writ Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the pleadings are inconsistent as regards the acquisition of the property by the Writ Petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant may suffer irreparable loss and hardship, if the Interim Order dated 09.09.2025 passed by this Court is not vacated. 6. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant had further contended that the Writ Petitioner has stated in Para-2 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the subject property is devolved upon the Writ Petitioner by way of family partition. Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) dated 26.08.2025 (Ex.P.1) wherein, it has been stated by the Writ Petitioner that he has acquired the property through the „Will‟ of his father. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Contempt Notice issued by the Writ Petitioner dated 22.02.2026. He would also submit that neither of these contentions of the Writ Petitioner about his ownership and possession are true. The Contempt Notice is issued by the Writ Petitioner to certain private parties in addition to the Special Deputy Collector, APCRDA. 7. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Para-2 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition to indicate that the Writ Petitioner has stated that he had acquired the property through devolution by way of family partition arranged through his community elders in the year 2005. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents filed along with the Writ Petition to indicate that the Writ Petitioner has acquired „Udyam Registration Certificate‟, dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.2 in Writ Petition) and also obtained loan from the bank by pledging the land of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.58 of Velagapudi village (Ex.P.5). Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Certificate issued by the Tobacco Board which is the Certificate of Registration as a 6 grower of Virginia Tobacco for the years 1977-1978 wherein, the Survey No.58 is also shown (Ex.P.7). 8. It transpires from the record that the Writ Petitioner has not placed any document issued by the Department of Revenue to indicate muchless to authenticate that the Writ Petitioner is either the owner or in possession of Ac.1.00 cents in Survey No.58 of Velagapudi Village. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 would indicate that the Applicant only alleged that the road adjacent to the plot which belongs to him has been occupied by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, Ld. Senior Counsel would submit that the Applicant herein has not been evicted from the plot that belong to him and therefore, no prejudice is caused to him. 9. The CRDA Act contemplates land pooling scheme. The documents filed by the Applicant would indicate that the vendor of the Applicant has surrendered an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Survey No.88 of Lingayapalem Village and in lieu of the same, the CRDA has allotted Plot No.21 in a lay out in Survey No.58 of Velagapudi Village of an extent of 390 square yards. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to Form-9.14 B Development Agreement-cum-irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by the vendor of the Applicant in favour of the CRDA dated 26.10.2017. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has also taken this Court through the layout at page 27-B in I.A.No.01 of 2026 and also page 51. 10. Having regard to these facts, this Court notices that admittedly the CRDA has not been made a party. This apart, prima facie, it appears to the Court that the documents relied upon by the Writ Petitioner such as ‘Udyam Registration Certificate’ is of a recent origin that is issued on 31.01.2025 and the photocopy of the ‘Will’ which is submitted across the table is an unregistered will. The Writ Petitioner has not placed any document from the Department of Revenue to indicate that the Writ Petitioner is either the owner or in possession or both or neither in respect of the land projected in this Writ Petition. 11. In this view of the matter, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the Interim Order passed by this Court on 7 09.09.2025 deserves to be modified to the following extent: (i) There shall be a direction to all the parties to maintain Status quo obtaining as on today, till next listing. (ii) There shall be a further direction to all the parties not to create any third party rights either by way of lease, sale or by any other mode of alienation, until next listing. 12. In view of the request made by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, let Counter-Affidavits be filed in both the Interlocutory Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 on or before 15.04.2026. 13. Liberty to the Applicant to file Re-joinders to the Counter Affidavits in both the I.As before the next listing. 14. List on 22.04.2026 immediately after the Motion List for admission hearing of the Writ Petition and the I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Since the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner sought time to file objections in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 seeking impleadment and vacation of the Interim Order dated 09.09.2025, the matter was adjourned to 22.04.2026 by liberally granting two weeks time to the Writ Petitioner to file objections in I.A. Nos.1& 2 of 2026 in W.P.No.23677 of 2025. When the matter was again listed on 23.04.2026, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner sought further time to file Counter-Affidavit to I.A.Nos.1& 2 of 2026. The matter was again adjourned to 27.04.2026. In the meantime, the Writ Petitioner has filed „Memorandum of Protest‟ on 23.04.2026 against the Applicant herein for non-production of necessary material documents, which, according to the Writ Petitioner, are essential for filing Counter-Affidavits in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026. At this stage, after perusing the said contents of „Memorandum of Protest‟, this Court is constrained to observe that this „Memorandum of Protest‟ is not in the form of an Application supported by a sworn Affidavit and it appears to be strange at the very outset. It is simply filed 8 with the signature of Advocate-on-Record for the Writ Petitioner. However, when this Court has compared the signature of the Advocate-on-Record on the „Memorandum of Protest‟ with the signature in the main Writ Petition, both the signatures are not tallying. Even assuming that the Applicant has not placed on record the material, the statutory procedure for seeking a direction from the Court for production of material documents is entirely different and in any case it has to be filed in the form of Application supported by a sworn Affidavit. This apart, strangely the Writ Petitioner has filed bunch of documents along with this „Memorandum of Protest‟ dated 23.04.2026. On 27.04.2026, when the Writ Petition came up for consideration, the Applicant seeking impleadment has drawn the attention of this Court to the „Memorandum of Protest‟ filed by the Writ Petitioner. Ld. Senior Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner had stated that he is not pressing the said Memorandum of Protest. He has submitted that an Affidavit is field by the Writ Petitioner on 27.04.2026 seeking to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition. 7. However, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant seeking to implead has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner on 27.04.2026 about certain objectionable contents in the Affidavit which amounted to putting the words into the mouth of the Court which the Court never intended. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is opposing the grant of liberty to the Writ Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition, but the Applicant has no objection for unconditional withdrawal of the Writ Petition. On observing the said contents of the Affidavit, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Ld. Senior Counsel, has sought indulgence of this Court to withdraw the said Affidavit with an undertaking that they would file a revised Affidavit. The Matter was adjourned to 28.04.2026 by allowing the Affidavit dated 27.04.2026 to be withdrawn. When this Court had again listed this Writ Petition on 28.04.2026, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner had submitted that the Writ Petitioner has filed an Affidavit seeking to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to file 9 fresh Writ Petition; but the Writ Petitioner has not filed any Counter-Affidavits in both the Interlocutory Applications. 8. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the course of hearing on 28.04.2026, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant seeking impleadment has passed across the table an Affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner in another Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.3335 of 2026 along with certain material papers. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Para-3 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.3335 of 2026, wherein the Writ Petitioner herein, who is also the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.3335 of 2026, had ventured to state that the Order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2025 had not only recognized and protected the lawful rights of the Writ Petitioner over the subject property but that Order had even attained finality. Para Nos.3, 5 & 6 of the Affidavit filed in support of the W.P.No.3335 of 2026 are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. I respectfully submit, my lawful rights over the subject property were recognized and protected by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.23677 of 2025, by order dated 09.09.2025, when the Panchayat Secretary, Velagapudi Gram Panchayat and his aides unlawfully interfered with my possession. The said order has attained finality and is binding on all authorities. 4. xxxxx 5. I respectfully submit, to meet my urgent medical needs, I decided to sell the subject land. A prospective purchaser, Sri Mallela Gopi, agreed to purchase the same for valid consideration. Accordingly, I presented a draft sale deed for registration before the Respondent No.2 - Sub-Registrar, Mandadam, by way of postal submission vide Receipt No.EN589991753IN dated 12.01.2026, expressing my readiness and willingness to pay all stamp duty, registration fee, and incidental charges. Despite lapse of considerabletime, the Respondent No.2 failed and neglected to process or register the document, without passing any written order or assigning lawful reasons. 10 6. I respectfully submit, instead of discharging his statutory duty, the Respondent No.2 illegally insisted that I should "prove title" to my property as a pre- condition for registration, which is wholly without jurisdiction. The Respondent No.2 further falsely claimed that the subject property was prohibited under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, relying upon a concocted and non-existent notification. Upon verification of the official online prohibited properties list of the Registration Department, it was found that Sy.No.58 of Velagapudi Village is not notified under Section 22-A. Aggrieved by the said false representation and abuse of authority, I was constrained to lodge a complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Writ Petitioner had once again filed an Affidavit seeking withdrawal of Writ Petition with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition on 28.04.2026.Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, appearing through online on 28.04.2026, had sought time to personally appear before the Court and to make his submissions in response to the objections raised by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant seeking impleadment that the Applicant has no objection for withdrawal of the Writ Petition unconditionally but the said Applicant has objection with regard to the liberty sought by the Writ Petitioner for filing fresh Writ Petition. At request of Ld. Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, the matter was again adjourned to 04.05.2026 to enable the Ld. Senior Counsel to personally appear and to make his submissions. 10. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant seeking impleadment would further submit that the Writ Petitioner has mislead Ld. Single Judge during the course of hearing in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 by stating that the Interim Order passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition on 09.09.2025 has attained finality and secured a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Mandadam on 10.03.2026 directing the Sub-Registrar to consider the Representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 12.01.2026 and the Draft Sale Deed within three months. He would therefore submit that the Writ Petitioner is trying to fraudulently alienate the subject land and register the same to Sri 11 Mallela Gopi(third party) without having even a semblance of right by misleading the third parties that the Order of this Court dated 09.09.2025 in the instant Writ Petition had attained finality, while the said Order of this Court is only „interim‟ in nature. 11. On 04.05.2026 when this Writ Petition was again listed for admission hearing and for consideration of I.A.Nos.1 & 2 and the Affidavit for withdrawal with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition, this Court had noted in the docket/proceedings that even on second call, none appeared for the Writ Petitioner. However, due to the insistence of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant, this Court was constrained to list this matter today. Today also, even on third call, which is at the end of the Board, the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has not appeared. The conduct of the Writ Petitioner would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner is trying to avoid the Court Proceeding and the hearing of the I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 for the reasons best known to him. The facts which are narrated by this Court in the Order passed on 09.04.2026, extracted hereinabove, would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition without placing on record any documents to atleast establish prima facie ownership or prima facie possession. The nature of the documents that were filed by the Writ Petitioner are also described by this Court in the Order dated 09.04.2026 (extracted supra). This Court had noted that the Writ Petitioner has not filed a single scrap of paper from the Department of Revenue to establish the prima facie title or prima facie possession. 12. The impleadment Applicant has raised preliminary objection of maintainability of this Writ Petition on the ground that this Writ Petition is vitiated for non-joinder of necessary parties besides the inconsistent pleadings and statement of wrong facts. Ld. Senior Counsel representing the Applicant seeking impleadment would submit that the Writ Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence to grant liberty to file fresh Writ Petition by allowing the present Writ Petition to be withdrawn. The Writ Petitioner has not placed on record 12 any documents to substantiate the reason for non-impleading of the CRDA while the Writ Petitioner is alleged to have issued legal notice of contempt against certain Authorities. He would urge that this Writ Petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner had played fraud on this Court. 13. Admittedly, the subject land had been utilized by the CRDA for preparation of layout under Plot No.21, Block-B6 (Please see the Order of this Court dated 09.04.2026 for specific details – extracted supra). Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant would also submit that by taking undue advantage of the Interim Order passed by this Court on 09.09.2025, the Writ Petitioner herein has ventured to erect cement polls and had erected a running screen continuously by attaching the screen to the cement polls, thereby, demarcating a particular area as being under his possession. Ld. Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that this activity has been undertaken by the Writ Petitioner only after securing an Interim Order from this Court on 09.09.2025. 14. This apart, after going through the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3335 of 2026, its prayer and the Final Order that is obtained by the present Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to consider and mention the elementary facts as projected by the Writ Petitioner in order to understand the conduct of the Writ Petitioner herein which tantamounts to a gross abuse of process. As stated earlier, the present Writ Petitioner is also the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.3335 of 2026. The prayer sought in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 is as under: “…… to issue a Writ of Mandamus (or) any appropriate Writ, directing the Respondent No.2 to deal with the representation Dt. 12.01.2026 filed by me before him, in accordance with the law enunciated under the Registration Act and its Rules therein and the precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Hon'ble High Court and consequently for directing the Respondent No.2 to register any instruments, present by the Petitioner and to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court 13 may deem fit and proper into the circumstances of the case” 15. The contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, particularly Para Nos.3, 5 & 6 are already extracted supra in Para No.8. The contents of Para Nos.3, 5 & 6 of the Affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3335 of 2026 is so eloquent and would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner herein had deliberately made wrong statements of facts, which goes to the root of the matter, that the Order passed by this Court in the instant Writ Petition on 09.09.2025 had attained finality and that the lawful rights over the subject property were recognized and protected by this Court. This indicates that Para No.3 of the Affidavit is a complete misstatement of facts with an intent to mislead and secure an Order from this Court behind the back of certain Authorities and persons, who are not even arrayed as parties in both the Writ Petitions. Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the Affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.3335 of 2026 would indicate that the Writ Petitioner had made an attempt to sell away the property to one Sri Mallela Gopi for a valid consideration and sought a direction from this Court (in W.P.No.3335 of 2026) to consider the Representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 12.01.2026 and the Draft Sale Deed. 16. On perusal of the material documents filed by the Writ Petitioner herein in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 it transpires that the Writ Petitioner has filed a draft Sale Deed for the purpose of selling the subject property for a consideration (Ex.P.2 in W.P.No.3335 of 2026). With these facts, the Writ Petitioner herein had secured the Final Order in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 on 10.03.2026 and thereafter, had been pursuing with the Registrar for registration of the property in favour of Sri Mallela Gopi. 17. The contents of Para Nos.3 & 5 to 6 of the Affidavit filed in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner had secured an Order from this Court on 10.03.2026 by stating wrong facts that the lawful rights over the subject property were recognized and protected by this Court in 14 W.P.No.23677 of 2025 by Order dated 09.09.2025 and this Order has attained finality without even mentioning that the Order dated 09.09.2025 in the instant Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.23677 of 2025 is only an Interim Order and an Interim Order shall never be called as a Final Order until the Writ Petition is disposed of by confirming the Interim Order. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2026 filed by the Applicant seeking to implead him as Respondent No.5 in this Writ Petition is allowed. Registry is directed to make necessary changes in the cause title. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, I.A.No.2 of 2026 filed seeking to vacate the interim Order dated 09.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.23677 of 2025 is also allowed. Accordingly, the Interim Order dated 09.09.2025 and Para No.11 of the Order dated 09.04.2026 stand vacated. 20. In so far as the Writ Petition is concerned, this Court is also of the considered view that the Writ Petitioner should not be granted any liberty to either withdraw this Writ Petition or the liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Court declines the request of the Writ Petitioner to withdraw this Writ Petition. It is the discretion of the Court under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule-1, Order XXIII C.P.C, to grant liberty or reject for filing fresh Suit or Application (Please see : K.S. Bhoopathy and Others V. Kokila and Others : (2000) 5 SCC 458 – Para No.13). Even the Writ Court can exercise this discretion to grant liberty to file fresh Writ Petition in appropriate cases or to reject the same (Please see : Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior : (1987) 1 SCC 5 – Para No.7). In view of the objections raised by the Applicant (in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026) about the maintainability of the Writ Petition and also various facts which are disclosed by the Applicant (but concealed by the Writ Petitioner), this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petitioner does not deserve grant of liberty for withdrawal of the present Writ Petition and also with regard to the liberty sought by the Writ Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition for the following reasons: 15 (i) The present Writ Petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties (Please see a) Dattatreya and Others v. Mahaveer and Others: (2004) 10 SCC 665 - Para No.10; b) Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others:(2006) 8 SCC 487 - Para Nos.31 & 32; c) Uttaranchal Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht:(2010) 12 SCC 204 – Para No.9; d) Vishnu Vardhan alias Vishnu Pradhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501 - Para Nos. 43 to 46 and 48 to 50). (ii) Non-filing of any material documents to establish prima-facie title and prima-facie possession of the subject land by the Writ Petitioner (Please see (a) Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana:(1988) 4 SCC 534 – Para No.13; (b) Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti v. Union of India – (2010) 12 SCC 609 – Para Nos. 15 to 18; (c) A. Shanmugam V. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam rep. by its President and Others : (2012) 6 SCC 430 – Para Nos. 41 to 43). (iii) Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (Suppression of material facts/documents suggests falsehood) (Please See (a) Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society : (2013) 11 SCC 531 – Para Nos.44 to 47; (b) Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha : (2024) 4 SCC 432 - Para Nos.2 to 7;(c) Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Others : (2024) 5 SCC 481- Para No.141). (iv) The Writ Petitioner played fraud on the Court in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 deliberately by making 16 misstatement of facts and wrong interpretation of Interim Order of this Court dated 09.09.2025 passed in the instant Writ Petition by stating that the Court had recognized and protected the lawful rights of the subject property of the Writ Petitioner and such “Order has attained finality and is binding on all Authorities”. (Emphasis supplied) (v) During the pendency of the present Writ Petition and the subsistence of an Interim Order dated 09.09.2025, the Writ Petitioner has attempted to sell the subject land to one Sri Mallela Gopi (third party) for a consideration without being able to establish that the Writ Petitioner has a lawful title and lawful possession over the subject property. (vi) Based on the Final Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3335 of 2026 dated 10.03.2026, this Court does not known whether the Writ Petitioner has succeeded in selling away the subject property to Sri Mallela Gopi (third party) or not? 21. In the light of the above discussion and the conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is a gross abuse of process. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) (Please see: Leelawati (Dead) Thr. Lrs. V. State of U.P and Others : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 612 – Para No.9).The Writ Petitioner is directed to pay Costs of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar Association, High Court Buildings, Amaravati within three (03) weeks from today. The President of Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, High Court Buildings, Amaravati is directed to buy 17 „Law Books‟ for the said amount and add them to the Association‟s Library. The remaining costs of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited in favour of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee (APHCLSC), Amaravati within three (03) weeks from today. 22. Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the President, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, High Court Buildings, Amaravati and to Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee (APHCLSC), Amaravati, for proper compliance. 23. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 05.05.2026 Note: L.R Copy to be marked. B/O : Mnr/JKS 18 60 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD I.A.Nos.1 & 2 OF 2026 IN/AND WRIT PETITION No. 23677 OF 2025 Dt.05.05.2026 Mnr/JKS