Leave granted.
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court dated 14.09.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.740 of 2007.
The case pertains to allotment/alienation of 3 acres
and 18 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.336,Balanagar
Mandal, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District to Hyderabad Allwyn
Employees Co-operative Housing committee, respondent No.5
herein, on 4.6.2005. Admittedly, respondent No.5 thereafter
allotted and handed over plots in the said property to
various persons who claimed to be members of the respondent
No.5 society (although the appellant contended that they
were not members).
Appellant herein filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad challenging the
alienation/allotment of the aforesaid land to respondent
No.5 herein which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge
on 21st August, 2007, inter alia, on the ground that the
persons to whom the respondent No.5 allotted plots were not
impleaded.
Aggrieved against the order of the learned Single
Judge, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High
Court, by the impugned order, declined to entertain the
appellant's challenge to the alienation made in favour of
respondent No.5 on two grounds:
“(1) the appellant did not offer any
explanation for the delay of almost two
years between the date of alienation made in
favour of respondent No.5 i.e. 4.6.2005 and
filing of the writ petition i.e. April,
2007, and
(2) the persons to whom plots have been
allotted by respondent No.5 and who are in
possession of the individual plots have not
been impleaded as parties to the writ
petition and without hearing them, the
allotment in question cannot be annulled.
In our opinion, non-impleadment of the
beneficiaries of allotment was fatal to the
writ petition filed by the appellant.”
Many of the persons in whose favour plots were
allotted/alienated by respondent No.5 have filed impleadment
applications before us. The applications for impleadment
are allowed and they have also been heard.
In our opinion, natural justice required that the
persons in whose favour respondent No.5 allotted plots in the property and to whom possession had also been handed
over should have been impleaded in the writ petition and
they should have been heard by the High Court. We have
recently held in Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
vs. Regional Director, ESI & Others reported in 2009 (11)
SCALE 766 that no order adverse to a party should be passed
without hearing him. In the present case, if the writ
petition was allowed the order will adversely affect the
allottees. Hence, in the interest of justice, we are of the
opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Division
Bench of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance
with law after hearing the persons in whose favour plots in
the land have been allotted including the impleaded persons.
Delay in filing the writ petition is condoned.
Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the
impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the Writ
Appeal No.740 of 2007 on the roster of the High Court. The
impleaded parties are directed to file their counter
affidavit within three weeks from today before the Division
Bench of the High Court. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be
filed within the next two weeks.
Though, we have allowed the applications for
impleadment but if any affected party is still there and he
wants to implead himself in this matter, he is at liberty to file an application for impleadment before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The matter shall be listed for
final disposal before the Division Bench immediately after
the expiry of the aforesaid period.
We make it clear that we are not expressing any
opinion on the merits of the dispute. All contentions are
left open to the parties.
While issuing notice on 21st April, 2008, this Court
directed the parties to maintain status quo. This order of
status quo shall remain in force till the case is decided by
the High Court.
The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.