Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Assn. vs Govt. of A.P.

Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association ..Appellant

versus

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others ..Respondents

O R D E R

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 -2-

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

-3-

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

-4-

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.

............................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ............................J. SEPTEMBER 08, 2009. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]