Disposed¶61

G v. Ramana Murthy v Kona Bheemeswara Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2025WA/173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal; Clause 15 Letters Patent; interim order granting main relief set aside; W.P. No. 1897 of 2023; order dated 24.01.2025; tank land Sy.No.31 Penumarthi Village Kakinada Rural Mandal; Writ of Mandamus; Gram Kantam land versus private tank; villagers drawing water; impleadment application pending; hearing before interim relief; fresh consideration; Section 151 CPC suspension petition (I.A. No. 3 of 2025); disposed of without costs; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice; R Raghunandan Rao, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Impugned interim order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P. No. 1897 of 2023 set aside; the writ-petition issue to be reconsidered afresh by the learned single Judge after deciding the appellants' impleadment application and hearing them; Writ Appeal disposed of without costs.

G v Ramana Murthy Vs Kona Bheemeswara Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1897 of 2023 — directing the respondents, subject to the result of the writ petition, not to prevent the petitioner from filling the remaining portion of the subject land in Sy.No.31, Penumarthi Village — could stand, given that it granted the main relief sought in the writ petition. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

On a simple principle of law, and without going into the merits, the order impugned — although passed to protect the petitioner's interest at the interim stage — conclusively grants relief in favour of the petitioner, thereby leaving nothing for adjudication.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Permitting the interim order to be implemented would leave nothing for the Court then to decide in the writ petition.

¶53

Key takeaways

The order impugned is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶60
The writ-petition issue shall be considered afresh after deciding the appellants' application for impleadment and granting them an opportunity of being heard.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati (Division Bench: Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao), Writ Appeal No. 173 of 2025 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, disposed of on 06.03.2025. The appeal challenged the interim order dated 24.01.2025 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1897 of 2023, which — subject to the final result — directed respondents not to prevent the writ petitioner from filling the remaining portion of the subject land in Sy.No.31, Penumarthi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. Holding, without entering the merits, that an interim order which conclusively grants the main relief sought leaves nothing for adjudication and is unsustainable, and noting that the appellants (villagers drawing water from the tank, who contest that it is Gram Kantam land and not the petitioner's private property) had a pending impleadment application requiring an opportunity of being heard, the Bench set aside the impugned order and directed fresh consideration after deciding the impleadment application. Appeal disposed of without costs; the question of ownership (private tank v. Gram Kantam land) expressly left open.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICp.

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAp

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 173 OF 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^{theorderdated} 24.01.2025 in W.P.No. 1897 of 2023 on the file of the High Court.^

¶9

Between:

¶10

G V Ramana Murthy, S/o. Late Mangaraju, Aged about 53 Years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Tammavaram Village, Kakinada Rural mandal, Kakinada District.

¶11

Peethala Surya Rao, S/o. Late Pentaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Penumarthi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District.

¶12

K. Veera Raghavulu, S/o Late Appana, Aged about 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Penumarthi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District.

¶13

Penke Lakshmi, W/o. Surya narayana. Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Penumarthi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal Kakinada District.

¶14

Kaldari Chanti amma, W/o. Apparao, Aged about 80 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Penumarthi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District.

¶15

¶16

Penke Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Kannaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Penumarthi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal Kakinada District.

¶17

...Appellant^

¶18

AND

¶19

Kona Bheemeswara Rao, S/o. Satyanandam, Aged 59 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o 2-62-6/1, Santhinagar, Kakinada Kakinada^District.

¶20

...Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District.

¶22

The District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.

¶23

The Penumarthi Gram Panchayath, Penumarthi village,^{KakinadaRural} Mandal Kakinada District.

¶24

M. Veerabhadra Rao, Panchayath Secretary, Penumarthi^Gram Panchayat, Penumarthi, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District

¶25

...Respondents/Respondents

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 24-01-2025 in W.P. No. 1897 of 2023 passed by the learned single judge, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants:SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI^

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI C V R RUDRA PRASAD

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: GP FOR PANCHYAT^RAJAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO^SCFOR ZPP, MPP AND GP

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

APHC010092422025

¶34

Bench Sr.No:-60 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3446] AT AMARAVATI

¶35

WRIT APPEAL NO: 173 of 2025

¶36

G. V. Ramana Murthy and 5 others

¶37

...Appellants

¶38

Vs.

¶39

Kona Bheemeswara Rao and 4 others

¶40

...Respondents

¶41

********** Advocate for Appellants Mr. Koti Reddy Idamakanti Advocates for Respondents GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Mr. Yarraguntia Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats

¶42

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶43

DATE : 6th March 2025

¶44

PC :

¶45

The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters^Patent,has been preferred against the judgment and order impugned,^{dated24.01.2025,} passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1897 of^2023.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that^theinterim relief that has been granted to the petitioner by virtue of the order impugned. in fact, is the main relief, which the petitioner had sought in the writ petition.

¶47

On a perusal of the petition, it can be seen that the petitioner had

¶48

sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent^Nos.3&4in

¶49

2 HCJ & RRRJ WANo,173 of 2025

¶50

preventing the petitioner from filling up the remaining^{portionofthetankland} which is situate in S.No.31 of Penumarthi Village in^{KakinadaMandal} of Kakinada District.

¶51

By virtue of the order impugned, dated 24.01.2025,^thelearned single Judge proceeded to order as under:

¶52

“Subjeci to the result of the Writ Petition, the respondents are directed not to prevent the petitioner from filling^{theremainingportionof} of Penumarthi the subject land of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.31 Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District. List the matter after three (3) weeks."

¶53

Clearly, in case the interim order is permitted to^{beimplemented,there} would be nothing for the Court then to decide in the^{writpetition.}

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the^{villagersarein} fact directly affected by the order impugned inasmuch^{astheyarealldrawing} water from the said water tank, which the petitioner^seeksto fill up claiming the said water tank to be his own. It is stated that^{anapplicationforbeing} impleaded as party respondents has since been filed^{bytheappellantsbefore} the learned single Judge, which has yet to be considered.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1^herein,onthe other hand, yet again reiterated that the tank in question^{istheprivateproperty} of the petitioner and therefore nothing could prevent^the petitioner from enjoying the said tank in whichever way the petitioner^{wishandtothatextent} that the order passed by the learned single Judge warrants^{nointerference.}

¶56

¶57

HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.173 of 2025

¶58

Without going into the merits of the case, on a simple principle of law, we feel that the order impugned, which although is passed to protect the interest of the petitioner at interim stage, conclusively grants relief in favour of the petitioner thereby leaving nothing for adjudication^thereof.

¶59

It appears that the appellants herein claim to be affected parties and are since before the learned single Judge, who are also then required to be heard and who contest that the tank in question is in fact not a private tank but is situate in Gram Kantam Land.

¶60

Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the order impugned is unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. The issue shall be considered afresh after deciding the application of the appellants for impleadment and granting them an opportunity of being heard.

¶61