K.Lakshman Rao, v. The Asst.Commissioner And Executive Officer,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 66 of 2015 Date: 10.02.2015 Between:

K. Lakshman Rao & another.

... Appellants And The Asst. Commissioner & Executive Officer, Andhra Jatiya Vidya Parishat, Machilipatnam, Krishna District & another.

... Respondents This Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 66 of 2015 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners in the Writ Petition No.12430 of 2004 against common judgment and order dated 11th June, 2014 even after having been successful before the learned Trial Judge. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 06.07.2004 intending to auction leasehold right for three years of the property to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents owned by the writ petitioners in Sy.No.500 situated at Eluru, West Godavari District.

The primary contention of the appellants before the learned Trial Judge was that the auction was conducted without any notice to the writ petitioners and further without giving any opportunity of being heard. Further contention of the writ petitioners is that respondents have no authority under law to hold auction as above. The Trial Judge accepted the plea of the writ petitioners with a lengthy judgment and reasons, and granted the relief as prayed for. However, those reasoning are not appealed against. Neither cross-appeal nor any cross-objection has been filed by the respondents.

the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer having jurisdiction over the area and in case of failure to pay the said amount, the 1st respondent would be at liberty to take possession of the property, is legally sustainable or not.

We have checked up the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. No plea was taken that in the event the writ petition is allowed condition should be imposed. According to us, as rightly contended by Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that in the name of "complete justice" as we are more often than not swayed by this phraseology this sort of measure is not appropriate all the time. The law requires the Court to grant relief as asked for by the parties in the pleadings, unless otherwise permissible in the substantive law. We have checked up the pleadings. We do not find as rightly pointed out by Mr. Manohar that neither of the respondents did make such claim.

We therefore hold that the aforesaid direction is totally uncalled for and without jurisdiction and accordingly we delete that portion in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment, which starts with the words "However, keeping in view the interest of the 1st respondent .............. will be regarded as disobedience of this order.", and rest of the judgment would remain as it is.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Liberty is given to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law, as may be advised consequent upon the judgment of the learned Trial Judge as modified by us.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 10.02.2015 ES