Back
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J
Smt. Kandregula. Suneetha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.19294 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.M.M. Krishna
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue
A writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties (the beneficiary of the challenged instrument) and the impermissibility of simultaneous prosecution of proceedings in both Civil Court and High Court for the same relief.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Non-joinder of Necessary Parties - Challenge to Patta - Where a petition challenges a patta issued in favour of a third party, the absence of said beneficiary as a party to the proceedings is fatal to the petition. (Para 8, 10)
(B) Procedural Propriety - Simultaneous Proceedings - Parallel prosecution of remedies - A petitioner is not entitled to simultaneously prosecute proceedings in a Civil Court and the High Court for the same relief. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable given the non-joinder of the patta beneficiary and the existence of a parallel civil suit for the same relief.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the legality of a patta issued to a third party over disputed land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties submit that a civil suit is already pending regarding the property. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. non-joinder of the party in whose favour the patta was issued renders the petition dismissible. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. prohibition against simultaneous prosecution of civil and writ proceedings for same relief. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition with liberty to seek relief in existing civil suit. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in interfering and dispossessed the writ property without giving any prior notice to me and without considered the interim order in I.A.No.693 of 2017 in O.S.No.969 of 2017 on the file of the VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam for the writ property of an extent of 100 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No.115/D1 of Pulagalipalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is illegal, arbitrary, high handed violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to take immediate necessary steps against circular issued by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent regarding writ property and pass such other order or orders.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the land to an extent of 100 Sq. yards situated in Sy.No.115/D1 of Pulagalipalem Village from one Medisetti Ramunaidu vide its document No.128 of 2014 on 10.01.2014. Later, she constructed ACC sheets shed in the year, 2014 itself and the property was assessed vide its assessment No.1086497714 and assigned D.No.12-25/8 in favour of the petitioner in municipality records and she erected electricity connection vide its No.1164252284001774 and as well as water connection vide its No.10861934693485.
3. As Sri Karaka Thatababu S/o. Jaggappa, R/o.Pendruthi Village and Mandal made a report before the District Collector that the 4th respondent issued a patta in favour of Romala Sanyasi Rao on the application made by Karaka Thatababu vide application No.VZG1001-71-87162, dated 01.06.2017 for regularization of house site in Sy.No.137 of Pendurthi, this application was originally rejected, but the 4th respondent has given house patta to Romala Sanyasi Rao on the same rejected application for the land belongs to the petitioner and it is illegal and arbitrary.
4. The petitioner also contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam issued circular to the 4th respondent vide its R.C.No.42/2020/B, dated 02.01.2020, the instructions of circular is that Karaka Thatababu S/o.Jaggappa made a report before the District Collector through Spandana vide petition No.VSP201912173458 dated 17.12.2019 for cancellation of house site patta issued to Romala Sanyasi Rao by the 4th respondent on Karaka Thathababu’s application.
5. The petitioner enquired about the circular at 4th respondent’s office as well at the Revenue Divisional Office, but no action was taken. Therefore, the action of the 4th respondent in issuing patta in favour of Romala Sanyasi Rao is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as claimed by this petitioner.
6. During hearing, at the stage of admission, Sri M.M.M.Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner filed Civil Suit against Romala Sanyasi Rao and others vide O.S.No.969 of 2017 along with I.A.No.693 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam and therefore the action of the respondent No.4 is illegal and arbitrary.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the Suit is pending before the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam and the petitioner is entitled to claim fo
