IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 800 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/04/2009 in WP NO : 9164 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Narasamma W/o. Late G. Janaiah R/o. H.No.1-8-26/1, NIRD Road, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M.A. Hafeez, S/o. Late Ghulam Mohinuddin, R/o. H.No. 3-6-879/6, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahasildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer West Attapur, Hyderguda, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the respondent no.1: MR. B. VIJAY SEN REDDY for Mr. M. Govinda Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :800 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.4.2009 made in Writ Petition No. 9164 of 2009. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent is the writ petitioner. He filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge challenging the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in not passing any order on the appeal filed by him. While disposing of the writ petition through the order impugned in this appeal, the learned single Judge observed that as the 1st respondent has availed the remedy of appeal against the order of resumption passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and if he is dispossessed from the land even during the pendency of the appeal, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition and directed that the writ petitioner-1st respondent shall not be dispossessed from the land during the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the appellate authority. Assailing the said order, the third respondent therein filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to her; that she had no knowledge about the filing of the aforementioned writ petition by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. On the other hand, Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner would contend that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant by the impugned order. It is seen from the record that on an earlier occasion, the appellant herein has filed writ petition No. 5402 of 2008 before the same learned single Judge challenging the order of resumption passed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal in proceedings No. B/1478/2006, dated 27.11.2006. She also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents therein for restoration of the said land to the appellant. The same learned single Judge, who heard the matter, has allowed the said writ petition filed by the appellant with a direction to the appellant as well as the 1st respondent to submit their explanation/representation within a period of two weeks from that date and on such explanation/representation being filed, the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to pass fresh orders thereon taking into account the explanation/representation that might be submitted by the appellant and the 1st respondent. In view of the fact that the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner are parties to the earlier writ petition, viz., Writ Petition No.5402 of 2008, which was disposed of by the learned single judge on 27.11.2006 as aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge ought to have given notice to the appellant before passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, it would suffice if the appellant is allowed to participate in the appeal proceedings by impleading herself as party to the appeal. Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal, we allow the appellant to participate in the appeal proceedings by impleading herself as party to the appeal filed by the writ petitioner-1st respondent. Further, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, who is the appellate authority is directed to pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 17th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb