APHC010600742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1220 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3552] Mandapati Venkata Krishna Rao ...Appellant Vs. M/s Navodaya Biryani House and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Srinivasa Rao Pappu Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. A S C Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations) for R.3 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd February, 2026 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21.08.2025 in WP.No.21937 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is the owner of the property in which business in the name and style of Navodaya Biryani House was being conducted. It is stated that writ petition bearing No.21937 of 2025 came to be filed in which the petitioner claimed that the property in question was sought to be demolished on account of acquisition proceedings and that the petitioner ought to be considered for grant of compensation under the Right to Fair 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1220_2025 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned disposed of the petition in the light of an earlier order passed in WP.No.1400 of 2025 wherein directions had been given not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the due procedure of law. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being the owner of the property ought to have been incorporated as a party respondent in the petition and an impression is given as if the entire compensation was claimable only by the petitioner to the exclusion of the appellant herein. In any case it is stated that the appellant was a necessary party and ought to have been incorporated as such and that the disposal of the petition violated the right of the appellant of being heard. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. We feel that the appellant did have a right of being heard inasmuch as the appellant claims to be the owner of the property in question which is sought to be acquired. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order impugned and direct reconsideration of the matter by the learned single Judge. 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1220_2025 7. The appellant shall stand incorporated as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. Necessary amendments be incorporated in the cause title of the writ petition. Registry is directed to list WP.No.21937 of 2025 before the appropriate Bench having the Roster, on 17.02.2026. 8. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl