Remanded

Amaravti Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Apr 2024WA/337/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two farmers' societies challenged an order requiring separate court fees for each member of their societies for a writ petition seeking release of land-pooling annuities. The division bench remanded to the learned single judge to consider whether a common question under the first limb of Rule 4-A of the Writ Rules arises.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amaravti Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya Vs The… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 337 OF 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dt.07/12/2023 in W.P No.21531 of 2023, on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Amaravati Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya, (A society registered under the Societies Registration Act Regd.No. 261/2015) Rep. by its Joint Secretary, Sri Kallam Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Panakala Reddy, Having its office at 4-201 Yadava Bazar, Neerukonda, Mangalagiri Mandal, GunturDistrict, AndhraPradesh522240.

¶11

Rajadani Raithu Parirakshana Samithi, (A society registered under the Societies Registration Act Regd.No. 283/2016) Rep.by its Joint Secretary, Sri Dhanekula Rama Rao S/o. Seshagiri Rao, Having its office at 11-94 Thulluru Village and Mandal Guntur District AndhraPradesh-522237.

¶12

...Appellants/Writ Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Chief Secretary,^Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶15

The Spl. Chief Secretary, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶16

The Secretary Finance, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh,^{SecretariatBuilding,} Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶17

The Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority^(APCRDA), Rep by its Commissioner, Lenin Centre, Governorpeta,^Vijayawada, NTR District-520002.

¶18

The Commissioner and Chief Executive, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA), Lenin Centre, Governorpeta, Vijayawada, NTR District-520002.

¶19

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Collectorate, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh,

¶20

The Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, APCRDA, Nowlum Village, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur District,^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶21

Byreddy Sai Eswara Reddy, S/o. Byreddy Madhu Sudhan^Reddy,Aged about 31 Years, Occ Advocate, R/o. 1/1848-33, Yerramukkapalli, Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to suspend the Order dt.07/12/2023 passed in^{WPNo.21531/2023}

¶25

Court Fee based on individual directing the Writ Petitioners to pay Membership count of the Writ Petitioner Societies,^{intheinterestofjustice.}

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to dispose of^D.O. Lr. No. MAD 61LNDO IPS/ 59/2023- EST, Dt. 07/08/2023, sent by the^{5thRespondentin} the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main^WA.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. UNNAM SRAVAN KUMAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM^URBAN DEV

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents 4, 5 & 7: SRI KASA JAGAN^MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR APCRDA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

¶37

HCJ&RRRJ W.A.No.337 of2024

¶38

APHC010161702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

¶39

PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

[3446]

¶41

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY POUR

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶45

WRIT APPEAJ., NO: 557/2024

¶46

Between:

¶47

Amaravati Rajadliani Sameekarana Raithu ...APPELLANT(S) Samakya and another

¶48

AND

¶49

The State of Andhra Pradesh and 7 Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶50

Counsel for the AppeUant(S):

¶51

UNNAM SRAVAN KUMAR

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶53

GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 4. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY 5. GP FOR REVENUE 6. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

¶54

ORDER

¶55

Dt:.23.04.2024

¶56

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.RaLghunajidan Rao)

¶57

¶58

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.337 of 2024

¶59

Heard Sri Unnam Muralidliar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Unnam Sravai. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for respondent No.l, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Urban Development appearing for respondent No.2, the learned Government Pleader for Finance Planning appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned standing^counselfor respondents 4, 5 and 7, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.6 and Sri VivekanandaVirupa-ksha, learneo. counsel for respondent^No.8.

¶60

The appellants herein are two separate pubhc societies whose members are farmers, who are said to have given^theirland for land pooling for development of Amaravathi as the capital of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶61

These two appellants had moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.21531 of 2023 contending that the 5^^ respondent^wasnot releasing the yearly annuity amounts to the farmers who had given their land for land pooling, and for a direction to the respondent authorities to clear the bills in relation to the yesirly annuity amounts, payable to the members of the writ petitioners^societies apart from payment of interest @ 24% per annum on the delayed

¶62

¶63

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.337 of 2024

¶64

payment and further payment of exemplary damages to^eachand every member of the writ petitioners society.

¶65

The respondents had taken certain objection as to the maintainabmty of the writ petition. The learned single judge after hearing both sides had held that there were two issues relating to the maintainabihty of the writ petition. The first issue in relation to the maintainabihty of the writ petition was in terms of Order^I Rule 8 of C.P.C and on the question of whether the writ was maintainable against an executive order etc. The second ground was that a separate court fee must be paid for each of the members of the two petitioners’ societies and a writ would not be maintainable on payment of single set of coimt fees.

¶66

The learned single judge after considering the contentions raised in relation to the maintainabihty of the writ petition had held, by an order dated 07.12.2023, that the writ petition was maintainable.

¶67

On the question of payment of court fee, the learned single judge after noticing Rule 4-A of the Writ Rules as weU as various judgments cited before the learned judge, had held that there was no common cause of action and it would have to be treated that the rehefs were for individual benefit and as such, separate^courtfee

¶68

¶69

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.337 of 2024

¶70

would have to be paid for each of the members of the appellants’

¶71

societies. The operative part of the said order reads^asfollows:

¶72

“In view of the discussion supra, this Court is of^{theconsidered} opinion that the writ petition is maintainahle. Learned^counselfor the petitioners shall file hst of members in detail.^{Petitionersshall} pay deficit court fee (court fee based on members of association) within a period of 10 days from the date of this order.”

¶73

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant societies have preferred the present writ appeal.

¶74

Sri Unnam Murahdhar Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the^{causeofactionin} the present case is a common cause of action as relief is being sought for challenging the inaction of the respondents in releasing the yearly annuity amounts as per the details submitted by the respondent in his letter dated 07.08.2023.

¶75

Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the reliefs sought in the writ petition^would clearly show that the rehefs are sought for the individual^benefitof the each of the members of the appellants’ societies and, as rightly held by the learned single judge, there is no common cause of action,.

¶76

A perusal of the judgment of the learned single judge^would show that the learned single judge relied upon Rule^4-A of the

¶77

¶78

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.337 of 2024

¶79

Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceeding Rules and had held that separate Court fee would have to be paid in view of the provisions of Rule 4-A to the Writ Rules.

¶80

Rule 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceeding Rules^reads as foUows:

¶81

“4A. Two or more persons having a common question of or persons having common cause of action may join in a single writ petition paying a single set of court fee”.

¶82

This Rule consists of two limbs. Under the first limb, a single writ petition can he filed by paying a single set of court fee, by two or more persons having a common question to be answered in the writ petition. Under the second limb, a single writ petition can be filed by paying a single set of court fee by two or more persons having^a common cause of action.

¶83

In the present case, the parties to the proceedings^donot appear to have raised the question as to whether there is a “common question in the writ petition”. As no such issue has been raised, the learned single judge has also not considered the same.

¶84

We are of the opinion that the issue of whether there is a common question under the first hmb of the Writ Rule requires to be considered before any final view can be taken.

¶85

¶86

HCJ&RRR,J W.A.No.337of 2024

¶87

In the circuinstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the learned single judge to consider the question of whether a common question mentioned in Rule4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceeding Rules arises in the presence or not”.

¶88

It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any view in relation to the question of whether a common cause has arisen in the writ petition or not and the said question is left open. There shall be no order as to costj.

¶89

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

SDI- M. RAMESH BABU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶97

The Spl. Chief Secretary, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶98

The Secretary Finance, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶99

The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA), Lenin Centre, Governorpeta, Viiayawada NTR District-520002.

¶100

The Commissioner and Chief Executive, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, (APCRDA) Lenin Centre, Governorpeta, Vijayawada, NTR District-520002.

¶101

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Collectorate, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh,

¶102

The Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority,^APCRDA Nowlum Village, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur District,^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶103

One CC to SRI UNNAM SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

Two CCS to GP for GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶105

Two CCs to GP for MUNICIPAL ADM URBAN DEV, High^Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶106

Two CCs to GP for FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court^ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶107

One CC to SRI KASA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, SC for APCRDA [OPUC]

¶108

Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶109

One CC to SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA [OPUC]

¶110

Three CD Copies

Madhu

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/04/2024

ORDER

WA.No.337 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS

Amaravti Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amaravti Rajadhani Sameekarana Raithu Samakya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs The Lakshmi Traders

Naidu Hanumanth Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Palamangalam Chenga Reddy

Yelamanchili Sri Chaitanya Dev Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kucharlapati Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Akshinthala Guru Prasad Gupta

Sri Sri Sri Veeranjaneeya Swamy Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh