THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 644 of 2010 Between: The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others ….Appellants And Yerramsetti Kondaiah and others. …Respondents. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-7-2010 of the learned single Judge directing maintenance of status-quo in the context of the writ petition filed challenging a notification issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the hand of the District Collector, East Godavari District under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing acquisition of land in certain survey numbers in Vella Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, some of which are the subject matter of the writ petition, by the tenants of those lands. In the writ petition, the respondents herein (the writ petitioners) have impleaded the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada; the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District; and the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer), Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. The State of Andhra Pradesh which has initiated the process of acquisition and which alone can initiate the process of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, is not impleaded as a party respondent. The acquisition is by the State acting through the District Collector. The District Collector merely acts on behalf of the State. Article 300 of the Constitution enjoins that the Government of the State may sue or be sued by the name of the State. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure similarly enjoins that in the suit against the State, the State shall be named as the defendant. The provisions of the CPC are in conformity with the constitutional prescription in Article 300 of the Constitution. No relief against the State could be legitimately be claimed without impleading the State in its formal description. As the State which is a proper and necessary party has not been impleaded, no interdiction of an acquisition proceedings initiated by and under the authority of the State could be maintained. Accordingly and on the above analysis, the order dated 13-7-2010 in WVMP No. 2680 of 2010 in W.P.M.P.No. 16588 of 2010 in W.P.No. 13162 of 2010 is set aside. It is however open to the petitioners to pursue appropriate strategies for impleading the proper and necessary party in the writ petition and thereafter it is also open to the respondents to seek interim relief in such amended writ petition afresh, in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the appellants and Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 6th September, 2010 GRR