IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4649 OF 2009 Between:- Kollapalli Ramesh …Petitioner A n d M/s Nellimarla Jute Mills, Rep. by its Senior General Manager, Sri Chandra Kishore Jain and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4649 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21-08-2009 in I.A.No.1140 of 2008 in O.S.No.161 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein to be impleaded as 4th defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein was a third party to the suit O.S.No.161 of 2004, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein against respondents 2 to 4. The suit was filed with the following reliefs: a) declaring that the action of the defendants conducting survey, subdivision, and consequential incorporation of the entries in the revenue records regarding S.No.45/1 and 2, as S.No.45/1/A1 to A5 is void, illegal, arbitrary, and opposed to all cannons of established practice and procedure, and natural justice, and consequential relief thereto direct the defendants by means of mandatory injunction to restore the entries of the revenue accounts to their original possession that existed prior to the incorporation of the subdivision of S.No.45/1/A1 to A5; b) declaring that the ‘B’ schedule property, is absolute property of the plaintiff and consequently directing the defendants to vacate and handover vacant possession of ‘B’ schedule property to the plaintiff, within the time that may be granted and upon their failure to do so, authorize the plaintiff to get vacant possession of the same, through the process of the court, and authorize it to recover the costs of such delivery as if the costs of the decree; c) direct the defendants to pay mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the ‘B’ schedule property, from the date of the suit, till the date of delivery of the same to the plaintiff; and d) restrain the defendants their men and servants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property by the plaintiff, its’ men and servant in the manner, it likes. The defendants filed a written statement and necessary issues were also settled. At that stage, the petitioner-3rd party filed I.A.No.1140 of 2008 seeking to get impleaded as 4th defendant in the suit on the ground that he is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and he is entitled to protect his right as absolute owner of the petition schedule property. According to the petitioner, schedule property i.e., Plot No.K-24 was allotted to him by the Cooperative House Building Society. According to the petitioner, the jute mills, taking into consideration the welfare of the employees and with a view to provide house sites to them, had assigned an extent of Ac.15-00 of dry land in Sy.No.45/1 (old Sy.Nos.439, 493, 494 and 495) to the Society free of cost and the society obtained delivery of possession and has been in enjoyment of the same and a lay out plan was also prepared and approved by the gram panchayat. He further pleads that he was allotted Plot No.K-24 measuring 157 sq. yards and that he made an application for necessary permission for construction of a house. The jute mills company filed the suit O.S.No.161 of 2004 against the Government seeking change of mutation and also for mandatory injunction to restore the entries of revenue accounts to their original position that existed prior to incorporation of sub-division of survey No.45/1. The petitioner claims that, being the employee of the company and also a member of the society, he was assigned a portion of the said land i.e., Plot No.K-24 and any change of mutation and restoration of the entries in the revenue records would adversely affect his absolute rights over the extent allotted to him. He, therefore, contends that in order to protect his rights in the property as also his possession and enjoyment of the house which he had constructed in the said plot after obtaining all the necessary sanctions and permissions, it is necessary that he should get impleaded as a party defendant, being a proper and necessary party to the suit. In view of the claim of the petitioner over a portion of the land, which is subject matter of the suit wherein the petitioner is claiming his absolute rights of ownership and also claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of house constructed thereon, it is considered that the petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that the interest of the petitioner would also be taken care of by the contesting defendants i.e., District Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer. 5. Be that as it may, notwithstanding the fact that the suit is contested by the State, still the petitioner, who is admittedly allotted a plot, which forms part of the subject matter of the suit and over which he has constructed a house and has been residing therein, the petitioner would certainly be a proper and necessary party to get impleaded to the suit in order to protect his rights and interest therein. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner is not a proper and necessary party is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th June, 2010. Lrkm.