THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4292 OF 2007 DATE: 27.1.2011 BETWEEN: Thammina Ramu and ors petitioner And Sikindalapuram Durga Prasad and ors respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Ms.Vasudha Nagaraju Counsel for the respondents: Mr.Jayanti S.C. Sekhar The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4292 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the orders dated 2.7.2007 in I A No. 522 of 2006 in O.S.No. 112 of 1997 by the learned Principal JuniorCivil Judge, Anakapalli, dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code praying to add the petitioners as defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/first respondent herein seeking permanent injunction against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli and the District Collector, Visakapatnam. In the said suit, the petitioners who are third parties to the said proceedings, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead them as defendants 3 to 19 and to provide opportunity to contest the matter and protect their right and possession over the suit property. The said application was dismissed by order dated 2.7.2007, against which the present revision is filed. This Court while issuing notice before admission, granted interim stay by orders dated 6.10.2007 for a period of six weeks, which was extended until further orders by orders dated 30.11.2007. The case of the plaintiff/first respondent herein is that his father has purchased an extent of Ac.5.09 cents in patta no. 302, survey no.50/26 of an extent of Ac.3.63 cents, Patta No.306 survey no.50/30 of an extent of Ac.1.46 cents in one single plot with cashew nut topes in Vetajangalapalem village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakapatnam district by way of registered sale deed in Document No. 3039 of 1985 dated 8.7.1985 executed by Kundrapu Ammaji, who is daughter of original owner Mr. K Somi Naidu, whose name is also recorded in the revenue records. Being the sole legal heir, the said property was succeeded to Kundrapur Ammaji, who is vendor to plaintiff’s father. It is stated that prior to said purchase, the father of the plaintiff has purchased an extent of Ac.5.00 in Vetajangalapalem village within Anakapalli Sub Registry covered by Patta No. 300, S.No. 50/24 of an extent of Ac.5.00 from one Smt.Kundrapu Appalanarasamma on 12.11.1984 by way of registered sale deed in document No. 4443 of 1984. After purchase of the said property, the father of plaintiff applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue a Pattadar pass Book, but it is alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer instigated some landless poor and since the third parties with the assistance of Mandal Revenue Officer and other officials are interfering with their peaceful possession, a suit was filed for permanent injunction against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli and the District Collector, Visakapatnam. The case of the petitioners herein is that the schedule property is part and parcel of land covered under survey No. 50, Vetajangalapalem village, Anakapalli mandal, Visakapatnam district admeasuring a total extent of Ac.111.43 cents and out of the said land the second defendant/Mandal Revenue Officer has assigned an extent of Ac.5.10 cents to Appalanarasamma in Survey No. 50/24 and also assigned an extent of Ac.5.10 under Survey No. 50/21 to one Kannuru Somanaidu and issued “D” form pattas in the year 1961. Subsequently, the above assignees sold away the said land to one Kundrapu Appalanarasamma and Salapu Appalanaidu and D Sreeramulu contravening the provisions of A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer ) Act, 1977. Since the said transactions are in violation of the Act, 1977, the Mandal Revenue Officer, after conducting enquiry, cancelled the said “D”form pattas. However, in the meanwhile, the assigned land was sold away by the daughter of original assignee to the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is contended that the transactions entered by the plaintiff are hit by Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 and that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit proceedings and an opportunity should be afforded to them to contest the suit. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the entire material available on record. It is the case of the petitioners that they are landless poor and in fact they were issued with “D” form pattas by the Mandal Revenue Officer by following the due process of law, therefore they are proper and necessary parties and are entitled to be impleaded as party respondents/defendants. However, the said application filed by them seeking to implead them as party respondents was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that alleged D- form pattas were issued during the pendency of the suit without taking any prior permission from the Court, therefore petitioners cannot be said to be proper parties to the suit proceedings. The said order is without any justification, particularly when the petitioners herein have established their interest and claim over the said property. Further, it is immaterial as to whether the pattas granted to the petitioners were subsequently during the pendency of suit. It is also the case of the petitioners herein that the plaintiff has contravened the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and all these aspects needs adjudication and the petitioners have made out a case for impleadment. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 2.7.2007 is set aside and I.A. No. 552 of 2006 filed by the petitioners to implead them as defendants to the suit proceedings stands allowed. The Court below shall dispose of the suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 27.1.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4292 OF 2007 DATE: 27.1.2011