* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO + C.R.P.No.3748 of 2010 % Dated 01.12.2010 Between: # Smt. Mendi Mahalakshmi and another …Revision petitioners And $ A.P.State rep. By District Collector,Vizianagaram and others …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla ^ Counsel for the Respondents : Govt.Pleader for Arbitration <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3748 of 2010 Date:01.12.2010 Between: Smt. Mendi Mahalakshmi and another …Revision petitioners And A.P.State rep. By District Collector,Vizianagaram and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3748 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This civil revision petition is filed against the order and decree, dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.523 of 2010 in O.S.No.837 of 2005. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondents 1 and 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.837 of 2005 are the revision petitioners herein. They filed the suit against the third respondent, pending suit, the third respondent died, later his legal representatives were brought on record and they have been contesting the suit. While the matter stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram and Tahsildar, Denkada filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to add them as defendants in the suit on the ground that they are necessary parties and without their presence no complete and effective decision can be rendered in the suit. The petition was opposed by the revision petitioners on the ground that the suit is for bare injunction against the third parties and the respondents 1 and 2 are not necessary parties for disposal of the suit. If we go into the background facts of the case, an extent of Ac.02.04 cents to the first petitioner and an extent of Ac.01.85 cents to the second petitioner was assigned by the State Government under ‘D’ form patta in their favour in the year 1985. The third respondent approached the authorities under the Act 9 of 1977 (A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977) seeking cancellation of the assignment on the ground that the assignment was in respect of an extent of Ac.01.65 cents of Rastha in Sy.No.92/2, an extent of Ac.0.20 cents of Vagu in Sy.No.92/4 and Ac.2.04 cents which is in Sy.No.92/3 is part of Surapu tank. Ultimately the matter went up to Commissioner of Land Revenue who remitted it back to the Joint Collector for making a fresh enquiry against which the revision petitioners filed W.P.No.2484 of 2008 before this Court which is now pending. Thus, the validity of assignment made in favour of the revision petitioners under the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977 is pending adjudication in the said writ petition before this Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that since the suit is for bare injunction against the private individuals, the government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram and the Tahsildar, Denkada are not necessary parties and the learned trial Court in an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction allowed the said petition after the arguments in the suit were heard and the judgment was reserved. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration would submit that since the crucial question relates to the validity of the assignment of government land made in favour of the revision petitioners, without the presence of the respondents 1 and 2 representing the Government, there cannot be any effective and complete adjudication. It requires to be noticed that whether the assignment of land made in favour of the revision petitioners by the State Government is valid, is the question pending adjudication in W.P.No.2484 of 2008 before this Court. When the said question is pending adjudication before this Court, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram before whom the suit O.S.No.837 of 2005 is pending, cannot proceed to decide the very same question in the suit before him, more particularly, when the suit is for bare injunction by the assignees against the third parties. Moreover, under the scheme of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) a civil suit is barred in respect of the question as to the validity of the assignment made under the Act. There is no provision under the Act empowering the civil Court to adjudicate upon the said question. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil court is impliedly barred and only a writ petition before this Court is competent under Section 28 of the Act against the revisional order of the District Collector or revisional order of the government and this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review, can examine the legality or correctness of the decision taken by the authorities under the Act. Since the learned Junior Civil Judge before whom the suit is pending, is not competent to examine the validity of the assignment made in favour of the revision petitioners, it is absolutely unnecessary to add the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the District Collector, Vizianagaram and the Tahsildar, Denkada as defendants in the suit and the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is wholly erroneous and unsustainable in law. For the reasons aforementioned, the order and decree dated 15.07.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.523 of 2010 in O.S.No.837 of 2005 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date:01.12.2010 Note: L.R.copy to be marked. B/O ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.No.3748 of 2010 Date:01.12.2010