HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1066 of 2014 Date: 06.08.2014 Between:
Polisetti Muneswara Rao … Appellant And Medisetty Satyanarayana & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1066 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The appellant was not a party to the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. However, as he was adversely affected by the order passed therein, leave was granted to prefer this appeal.
The respondents/writ petitioners approached this Court by way of the subject writ petition assailing the action of the authorities in seeking to dispossess them from the land in question and also holding an auction of the leasehold rights in respect thereto. By the order dated 16.07.2014, which is now under appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the 6th respondent Temple to consider the request of the writ petitioners for extension of their lease and stipulated that till such consideration, they should not be dispossessed. Significantly, the order under appeal also recorded the fact that the auction of leasehold rights relating to the subject land had already been held on 27.05.2014 and the highest bid offered was Rs.1,07,000/-.
The counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent Temple before the learned Single Judge adverted to the fact that the competent authority had approved the acceptance of the aforestated highest bid on 12.06.2014 and that the land had been handed over to the highest bidder on the said day itself. These aspects of the matter were however not dealt with.
The appellant before us is the highest bidder in the aforestated auction whose rights stood crystallized upon the confirmation and acceptance of his bid by the competent authority under proceedings dated 12.06.2014. He was therefore palpably affected by the order under appeal and necessarily had to be heard in the matter. Unfortunately, he was not made a party to the writ proceedings originally and as no steps were taken to implead him even thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed behind his back. On this short ground, we are of the opinion that the order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The appellant is impleaded as the 5th respondent in the writ petition and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law and upon hearing all the parties.
As the factum of possession of the subject land is disputed, given the unrebutted averment in the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent Temple, we make no observation as to this aspect.
The writ appeal is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 06.08.2014 ES