HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15496 OF 1997 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 14914 OF 2005 Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August, Two Thousand and Eleven Between WP No. 15496 of 1997 Sappa Sanyasi Rao and others Petitioners AND M/s. R.B. Sriram and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Tadi Kamalakar Rao and another Respondents WP No. 14914 of 2005 Sappa Sanyasi Rao and others Petitioners AND M/s. R.B. Sriram and Company Ltd., Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Tadi Kamalakar Rao and another Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) These two writ petitions arise out of the judgment dated 13.5.1997 in L.G.C. No.220 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, to declare that the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property to an extent of 978 Sq. yards, which is part and parcel of an extent of Ac.15- 20, 716 Sq. feet in TS No. 78 of Visakhapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam Town and to deliver vacant possession of the same by declaring the respondents as land grabbers. The said L.G.C. was allowed. The Respondent Nos. 15, 34 and 38, filed W.P. No. 14914 of 2005 without making the other respondents in the L.G.C. as parties. But, however, they made the Special Court as Respondent No.2. The writ petition was dismissed for default against the applicant in the LGC i.e. the first respondent in the said Writ Petition vide order dated 18.4.2011. Therefore, nothing survives in the said writ petition. Insofar as W.P. No. 15496 of 1997 is concerned, though there are 45 respondents in the L.G.C., this writ petition is filed against 24 respondents alone. The petitioners have not made the other 21 respondents as parties to the writ petition. Thus the judgment of the Special Court has become final against the 21 respondents therein. It is the case of the applicant that the schedule property is 978 Sq. Yards and the respondents grabbed the said land and they are liable to be evicted. It is the case of the respondents before the Special Court that the respondents 4 to 44 in the L.G.C. are in possession of small extents of land and the portion in occupation of the respondents has not been demarcated with specific boundaries by giving specific schedule and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the relief sought for. But the said contention was rejected by the Special Court stating that there cannot be any impediment to pass a decree for eviction of the respondents even though the extent in possession of each of the respondents is not specified or demarcated by filing a sketch. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgment and decree is not separable and if that be so, when the judgment has become final as against 21 respondents in the L.G.C., the writ petitioners, who are the remaining 24 out of the 45 respondents, are not entitled to have a different order and decree. Therefore, we are of the opinion that without impleading all the respondents in the L.G.C., as the judgment of the Special Court is not separable, no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein. Adverting to the contention of the petitioner that the Power of Attorney holder is entitled to depose on behalf of the applicant company without revoking the power of attorney already granted in favour of one Mr. Nakara, Ex.A-1 appointing PW-1 to act on behalf of the applicant company is illegal and the power of attorney holder so appointed is not entitled to speak for the company and mark the documents, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Mr. Nakara was given Power of Attorney for the specific purpose of filing various suits against the occupants and all the suits were decreed and copies thereof were also filed. Whereas, the Power of Attorney in favour of PW-1 is for the specific purpose of filing L.G.C. and, therefore, there is no conflicting power in favour of Mr. Nakara and PW-1. It is further contended that the Special Court has allowed claim of the applicant based on Ex.A-7 and A-8. Insofar as Ex.A-7, Order of theTahsildar, Visakhapatnam dated 7.4.1974 is concerned, it is stated that the Tahsildar is incompetent to assign the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 and so also the order which was ratified by the Government under Ex.A-8, also is untenable. We have perused the said documents. It is to be seen that the Government vide their Memo No.567-J/67- Rev.(J) Department dated 1.5.1972, in revision filed by the applicant claiming patta to an extent of Ac.15.00 and odd against the orders of the Board in its BP Rt. No.58 of 1967 dated 4.2.1967, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar requesting him to get the claim of the revision petitioner/applicant enquired into and dispose of the same in terms of B.P. Rt. No. 404 dated 24.6.1963 and to act upon the Government Order dated 1.5.1972. The Collector also gave instructions in Rc. No.14273/72-D3 dated 8.8.1972 to take necessary further action in the matter. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, after conducting thorough enquiry and after inspecting the land, as per the instructions contained in B.P. Mis. No.404 of 1963 dated 24.6.1963, held that the land in question is a private land and, therefore, the formal recognition of the rights, which have already been accrued prior to Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area), Estates Abolition Act requires to be recognized and the provisions of A.P. Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation Ordinance), 1972 is also not applicable. It is also observed that a portion of the land is already covered by built up area and accordingly, ordered assignment to an extent of Ac.10.00 and odd in T.S.No. 78 of Block No.9 of Waltair Ward of Visakhapatnam Municipality and ordered that the same be treated as a private house site belonging to the applicant. After the said order of the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, marked as Ex.A-7 dated 7.4.1974, the Revenue Department, vide their Memorandum No. 502/JA2/84-18 dated 29.9.1989, marked as Ex.A-8, has confirmed the order of the Tahsildar holding that the Tahsildar simply implemented the earlier directions of the Government in Memo No.567/J2/67 dated 1.5.1972 and, therefore, the transaction of the year 1895, 1920, 12921 and 1956 show that it is a single piece of property and a private house site in Grama Kantam area and the provisions of Estate Abolition Act are not attracted as per the judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the order of the Tahsildar under Ex.A-7 was rightly confirmed by the Government under Ex.A-8 and the same has become final, as no one questioned the said order. Therefore, it cannot be said that marking of the said records through the General Power of Attorney Holder is either invalid or unauthorized. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned herein. Consequently, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy August 24, 2011 MAS