WA/285/2026 of SHRI JYOTHIRAADHITYA INFRA Vs PRATAP C JOISHER on 6 April 2026

1. SHRI JYOTHIRAAD HAVING ITS OFFIC RUDRAMPETA, A MANAGING PART G.LAKSHMIPATHI BUSINESS, R/O.VI LANE, BOTANICA HYDERABAD, TELA

1. PRATAP C JOISHE

2. THE STATE OF PRINCIPAL SECR BUILDINGS, VELA

3. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT,COLLEC COLLEGE OF MU 515134. E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G WRIT APPEAL NO: 285/2026 clause 15 of the Letters Patent by t d Single Judge in WP No.8881 of 202 ppeal on the following grounds, among DHITYA INFRA, A REGISTERED P CE AT DOOR NO.1-713/A-2, SRI NAG ANANTAPURAMU,

REPRESENT TNER,

G.UMA MAHESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 Y LLA NO.64, KOLIA LUXURIA, CHI AL GARDEN ROAD, KONDAPUR, ANGANA STATE-500084. AND ER, (DIED PER LRS) ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESEN RETARY. HOME DETARTMENT AGAPUDI,ANDHRAPRADESH. AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SR CTORATE OFFICE, SRI SATYA USIC, GOKULAM MAIN ROAD, P DESH

DRANATH ROY GEDELA the Order dated 25, the Appellant g others PARTNERSHIP, GAR COLONY, TED BY ITS REDDY, S/O YEARS, OCC RAC SCHOOL CYBERABAD, ...APPELLANT NTED BY ITS T,SECRETRIAT RI SATYA SAI SAI MIRPURI PUTTAPARTHI-

4. THE TAHSILDAR, O/O THASILDAR, SOMANDEPALLI VILLAGE MANDAL SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT.

5. PREMAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,

UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS, 3RD FLOOR,

MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI 400073.

6. DEVAL PRATAP JOISHER, S/O LATE PRATAP C.JOISHER AGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,

UDAYA BHANU APARTMENTS, 3RD FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD, GHATKOPUR, MUMBAI-400073. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Order dated 22/04/2025 in WP No.8881 of 2025 in the above Writ Appeal and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave and permit the Petitioner to le the above Appeal against the Order dated 22/04/2025 in WP No.8881 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave and permit the Petitioner to add Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as Respondents to the above Writ Appeal filed against the Order dated 22/04/2025 in WP No.8881 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone 275 days of delay in filing the above Writ Appeal against the Order dated 22/04/2025 in WP No.8881 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave and permit the Petitioner bring on record the documents annexed lo the lA filed for leave to file in the above Writ Appeal as additional documents and pass IA NO: 6 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 22/04/2025 in WP No.8881 of 2025 of the learned Single Judge and pass s IA NO: 7 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to order notice to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in lA Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2026 in WA No.285 of 2026 by way of advertisement in daily newspapers having circulation in the locality (Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ghatkopur, Mumbai) and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. D S SIVADARSHAN

3. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Challenging the order dated 22.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petition No.8881 of 2025, whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and has set-aside the notice dated 15.03.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Somandepalli Village and Mandal of Sri Satya Sai District, directing the writ petitioner to produce the documents enumerated in his notice before him, to ascertain the authenticity of the said documents, this writ appeal is preferred.

2. The writ petition was originally filed by one Pratap C. Joisher, challenging the notice dated 15.03.2025 issued to him by the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar in the writ petition to produce the documents mentioned in the notice, before him, to ascertain the authenticity of the said documents, to consider the claim of the writ petitioner made relating to the compensation payable for the land acquired by the State Government. The said writ petition was allowed by the impugned order. The appellant is the third party to the said writ petition. According to him, the writ petitioner is not the original owner and one Vikram Jethalal Joisher and his family members are the absolute owners of the land acquired by the Government and the appellant herein has purchased the said land from them under six registered sale deeds. Therefore, they are directly affected by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and thereby sought leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. The said leave application in I.A.No.2 of 2026 was allowed by this Court, as per order dated 16.03.2026, granting leave to the appellant to prefer an appeal.

3. Heard Mr. M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K.Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondent Nos.3 and 4. Despite service of notice on unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6, they did not enter their appearance. Therefore, they did not contest and oppose this appeal.

4. Factual matrix relevant to dispose of this writ appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

The State Government has acquired an extent of 1048 acres of land situated at Gudipalli Village of Somandepalli Mandal of Sri Satya Sai District, for the purpose of laying an industrial layout by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). Compensation has been fixed, payable for the lands acquired by the State Government. In the notification that was issued for acquiring the lands by the State Government, the name of Jethalal Haridas Joisher, who is the father of Vikram Jethalal Joisher, was shown as owner of the said lands acquired by the State Government. Thereafter, the writ petitioner by name Pratap C. Joisher made a claim to pay compensation for the said land to him and mutate his name in the concerned revenue records in respect of the said land, claiming himself to be the owner of the said land. Therefore, the Tahsildar, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, has issued notice dated 15.03.2025 to the writ petitioner by name Pratap C. Joisher, to produce certain documents which are clearly mentioned in the table furnished in the notice, before him, to ascertain the genuineness of the claim made by him and to ascertain the ownership over the said land. The writ petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the said notice before the learned Single Judge by way of filing the writ petition. In the writ petition, he has pleaded that a firm in the name and style Bhanushali Sisal Fibre Industry and Plantation, is the owner of the said land and Tahsildar is not competent to verify the title and ownership of the land and he cannot judge the things. The learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the writ petitioner and has allowed the writ petition and has set-aside the said notice issued by the Tahsildar, to produce the said documents, to ascertain the genuineness of the claim, by the impugned order.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant. According to the case pleaded by the appellant, originally Jethalal Haridas Joisher is the owner of the land that was acquired by the State Government and after his death, his son Vikram Jethalal Joisher and his family members succeeded to his estate, including the lands that are acquired by the State Government. It is the further case of the appellant that earlier the appellant has purchased a part of the said land, which is in an extent of 498 acres under six registered sale deeds from the said Vikram Jethalal Joisher and his family members and he became absolute owner of the said lands and he is entitled for compensation payable for the lands that are acquired by the State Government. Therefore, according to him, there is nothing wrong on the part of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in the writ petition to direct the writ petitioner to produce the documents mentioned by him in the notice, to verify the genuineness of the claim made by the writ petitioner over the said lands. Therefore, he sought to assail the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the said notice, in this appeal.

6. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. When the lands are acquired by the Government showing Jethalal Haridas Joisher as the owner of the said lands in the notification that was issued for acquiring the said lands and when a third party, who is the writ petitioner, made a claim for payment of compensation to him, claiming himself to be the owner of the said property, the Tahsildar is required to ascertain whether the writ petitioner got any acceptable title or right over the said lands to pay compensation to him or not. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Tahsildar in directing the writ petitioner to produce the documents in proof of his title and ownership of the said property, to verify the genuineness of his claim to pay the compensation to him. Particularly, when Jethalal Haridas Joisher was found to be owner of the said lands that are acquired at the time of issuing the initial notification for acquiring the lands and

when a third party makes a claim for compensation of the said lands subsequently, the Tahsildar, without making any enquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the claim, cannot entertain the said claim made by him. Further, the writ petitioner made a claim before the revenue authorities, claiming himself to be the owner of the said lands, whereas in the writ petition, challenging the land acquisition proceedings he has pleaded that a firm in the name and style Bhanushali Sisal Fibre Industry and Plantation, is the owner of the said property. Therefore, the inconsistency in the pleadings relating to ownership of the said land by itself shows that the claim for ownership made over the said land is not only vague in nature, but it is absolutely false. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the Tahsildar is perfectly justified in directing the writ petitioner to produce the documents in proof of his title to ascertain the genuineness of his claim. But, the learned Single Judge, without considering the said facts, has erroneously held that the Tahsildar cannot ascertain the title of the parties and judge the things and has set-aside the impugned notice. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity and patent illegality and it warrants interference in this appeal. If compensation is paid to the writ petitioner without ascertaining the genuineness of his claim with reference to his title deeds and other documents to establish his ownership over the said property, grave injustice would be caused to the real owners of the property and it will lead to further legal complications and results in multiplicity of legal proceedings.

7. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set- aside. The notice issued by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in the writ petition, is restored. He is at liberty to call for the documents from the writ petitioner and ascertain the genuineness of his claim to resolve the controversy. If at all there are rival claims based on valid documents relating to the title over the property, then he has to take a call to refer the parties to take recourse to law. A perusal of the proceedings of the Tahsildar show that in fact it is not a notice, but only a letter issued to the writ petitioner. Therefore, when it is only a letter, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 07.04.2026 MDP