Judgment:
Devinder Gupta, C.J.
1. Appellants filed writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned order by the learned single Judge on the ground that appellants can only seek redressal by filing review petition or appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent but another writ petition virtually challenging the directions issued in earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2002 is not maintainable.
2. Appellants claimed that they were owners and possessors on the basis of D form pattas granted in their favour in the year 1972 with respect to various parcels of land situate in Buddivalasa Agraharam village, hamlet of B. Tallavalasa, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam district. They claim that one Reddipalli Sanyasi Rao and his four sons (respondents 5 to 8) have frequently been quarrelling with them and other adjacent D form patta holders alleging fabricated and sham documents of agreement of sale in their favour which necessitated in appellants' filing representations before the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that civil suits are also filed. While the civil suits were pending, appellants came to know that some orders are procured by the sons of Reddipalli Sanyasi Rao in Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2002 in their favour with respect to their land without making the appellants as party in the said writ petition. Appellants thus virtually challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2002, dated 12-11-2002 contending that the said order was passed without impleading them as party and in any case the order is bad, illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires and not binding on them. On the strength of the said order, they were trying to interfere with appellant's possession. Therefore, they in turn sought direction against respondents 4 to 8 from interfering with their possession. Writ petition came up before the learned single Judge who at the stage of admission itself dismissed the writ petition on the ground that though appellants were not made party to the earlier writ petition but their only remedy was to seek redressal by filing review petition seeking review of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2002 or appeal against the said order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and thus writ petition is not maintainable.
3. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition is not correct view in law in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909. It was held that second writ petition was maintainable in certain circumstances. The Court held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude the High Court from exercising the powers of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In the said case in an earlier writ petition filed by one set of persons, affected and interested persons were not made party and the affected persons later on filed writ petition. High Court entertained the writ petition allowing the same and the aggrieved persons were directed to be added as party in the earlier writ petition and directed the earlier writ petition to be disposed of on merits. Thus the second writ petition filed was held to be maintainable and High Court was held to be having jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the instance of those who were not impleaded as party in the earlier writ petition. Ratio of the said decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Agriculture Market Committee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1973 (2) An.WR 287. Facts of the instant case are similar to the one in Shivdeo Singh's case (supra). Following the said decision, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside with direction to the learned single Judge to hear and dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the observations made in Shivdeo Singh's case. Writ petition be posted for admission and disposal before the learned single Judge on 30-6-2003. The record in Writ Petition No. 22948 of 2002 also be placed before the learned single Judge. It is further directed that status quo as oh today will continue to be maintained till appropriate orders are passed by the learned single Judge.