WA/1025/2024 of ENJETI VIJAYASIMHA Vs M REDDEPPA on 21 June 2026

1. ENJETI VIJAYAS AGED ABOUT 34 MANDAL, CHITTOO

2. ENJETI KUSUMA AGED ABOUT 55 MANDAL, CHITTOO

3. ENJETI RAGHUNAT

YEARS, R/o. CHITTOOR DISTRIC

4. ENJETI SESHAGIR YEARS, R/o. RAJAP DISTRICT.

5. ENJETI NAGARAJA YEARS, R/o. RAJAP DISTRICT.

6. ENJETI NARAS AGED ABOUT 50 MANDAL, CHITTOO

7. ENJETI MADHUSU ABOUT 50 YEARS, CHITTOOR DISTRIC

8. ENJETI SUBHADRA YEARS, R/o. RAJAP DISTRICT.

9. ENJETI SUSEELAM YEARS, R/o. RAJAP DISTRICT.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) E TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX T APPEAL No: 1025 of 2024 IMHA, S/o.LATE E.SRINIVASA YEARS, R/o.RAJAPALLE, PEDDA R DISTRICT. KUMARI, W/o. LATE E.SRINIVASA YEARS, R/o. RAJAPALLE, PEDDA R DISTRICT. THA RAO, S/o.SUBBARAYAPPA, AGE .RAJAPALLE,

PEDDAPANJANI CT. I RAO, S/o.RAMAMURTHY, AGED A PALLE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, C A RAO, S/o. RAMAMURTHY, AGED A PALLE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, C SIMHA PRASAD, S/o.RAMAN YEARS, R/o. RAJAPALLE, PEDDA R DISTRICT. UDHANA RAO, S/o. RAMAMURTHY, R/o. RAJAPALLE, PEDDAPANJANI CT. AMMA, W/o.RAMAMURTHY, AGED A PALLE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, C MMA, W/o.SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED A PALLE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, C

RAO, APANJANI A RAO, APANJANI ED ABOUT MANDAL, ABOUT 57 CHITTOOR ABOUT 55 CHITTOOR RIURTHY, APANJANI , AGED MANDAL, ABOUT 77 CHITTOOR ABOUT 85 CHITTOOR

10. ENJETI VENKATRAMANA RAO, S/o.LATE SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC:CULTIVATION, R/o. RAJAPALLE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. M.REDDEPPA, S/o. LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/o. BOMMALAKUNTA, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(APSPDCL), CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (APSPDCL), PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER(APSPDCL), PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER(APSPDCL), PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

7. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM:- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’OURABLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE : 22.06.2026 Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. Mr.S V MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Mrs.S PARINEETA

2. Mr.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

3. GP FOR ENERGY

4. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Appellants / third parties, impugning order in W.P.No.21899 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024, filed the present appeal. Learned Single Judge disposed of Writ Petition with following directions:

“8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit an application seeking new electricity service connection in respect of bore well dugged in the subject land through Mee Seva centers pursuant to the Circular’s / Memo’s issued by the Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, Tirupati, dated 23.09.2016 and 01.10.2016 along with all other required documents as per Circular / Memo issued by the Chief General Manager / O & M, APSPDCL, Tirupati, dated 26.10.2021, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such submission of an application by the petitioner, Respondent Nos.4 to 5 shall process the same without insisting NOC and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.”

2. Leave to appeal was allowed on 17.12.2024 and subsequently by an order dated 07.01.2025, operation of order dated 22.10.2024 was stayed.

3. We have heard Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Smt.S.Parineetha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / writ petitioner. Perused material on record.

4. Merits apart, it was contended that property in respect of which relief was sought for in the writ petition is subject matter of litigation in civil proceedings, that writ petition was filed without disclosing the correct facts, withdrawal of earlier writ petition etc; muchless by impleading appellants as party respondents. Impugned order affects rights of appellants and unless the same is set aside, serious prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused to them.

5. Perusal of averments in writ affidavit would go to show that in respect of the subject matter land of an extent of Ac.2.31 cents in Survey No.506/2 of Peddapanjani Village fields, a Revision Petition i.e., R.P.No.32 of 2007 is pending before the Director of Settlements, Vijayawada. It was filed by some of the appellants herein and challenging orders rejecting the implead petition filed by respondent No.1 / writ petitioner herein, W.P.No.14337 of 2019 was filed and the same is pending. In such circumstances, non impleadment of appellants herein and disposal of writ petition in their absence without hearing them, renders the impugned order unsustainable.

6. View expressed by Court being un-assailable, learned counsel for respondent / writ petitioner fairly stated that matter may be remitted to learned Writ Court for passing appropriate orders, after hearing both sides.

7. For the aforegoing reasons, order under appeal is set aside. Appellants herein be added as party respondent Nos. 8 to 17 in the writ petition, and posted before Writ Court having Roster. Needless to observe that this Court has not gone into merits or otherwise of rival claims.

8. Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Applications in the Writ Appeal, if any, are dismissed accordingly.

(LISA GILL)

(NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Date: 22.06.2026 BLV

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.A.No: 1025 OF 2024 Date: 22.06.2026 BLV