ORDER:

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri V.R. Avula, appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

2) Essentially there are two grievances in this matter:

(a) that before the impugned order dated 08.07.2011 was passed the writ petitioners were never put on notice;

(b) that an implead application was purportedly filed by V.

Ramachandra Naidu and others. Notice was not served on the parties before the RDO, yet a final order was passed, which is now impugned in the writ petition.

3) When the matter was heard earlier the learned Government Pleader was requested by an order dated 05.12.2022 to secure the original record. Ultimately the record was produced. A perusal of the record also does not conclusively reveal that an implead application was ordered after notices were issued to all concerned. As rightly pointed out by Sri V.R. Avula, learned senior counsel, this application was filed on 18.06.2010, where as the original appellant Sri Muni Raghavulu had already filed a Memo on 17.08.1998 itself withdrawing the appeal. The final orders were thereafter passed in the said appeal, which were preferred by Muni Raghavulu. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order dated 08.07.2011 has set aside the entire order dated 30.01.1996. The claim of the implead petitioners is in relation to 8 distinct plots of land and the extent involved in Muni Raghavulu appeal is about 4 acres, which is far more than the claim lodged by the implead petitioners.

4) In these circumstances, this Court has to agree with what is stated by the learned senior counsel. There appears to be a clear failure of the rules of natural justice. The writ petition is allowed on the ground of failure of natural justice and the impugned order dated 08.07.2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent, who is directed to conduct a de novo enquiry by issuing issue notices to all the concerned and proceed in accordance with law. Nothing is expressed on merits of the mater and all the issues of fact and law are left upon. In view of this order passed no further orders are warranted in I.A.No.1 of 2012 i.e., implead petition. The petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2012 (W.P.M.P.No.44426 of 2011) are given liberty to file appropriate applications before the 3rd respondent which will be decided on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to return the original record.

5) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Date:07.07.2023 Ssv THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24389 of 2011 Date:07.07.2023 ssv