ORDER : 1. This application is filed invoking the provisions of 16(a) of Writ Rules, 1977 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to the petitioners to implead them as party respondents in the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri B. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the proposed respondents, and Sri P.V. Mahesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 3.1. Learned counsel for the proposed respondents submits that sole petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 dated 23.04.2002 as confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 2073 of 2002 dated 01.04.2009, which was refused to be interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by its order dated 22.01.2010, and in not carrying out the directions of the Chief Minister, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to take immediate steps for allotment of the land in Survey No. 343 of Ameenpur Village of Patancheruvu Mandal, Medak District, in lieu of the land was taken over from the petitioner and the official respondents have failed to deliver back to the petitioner as directed by the Court. During pendency of the writ petition, sole writ petitioner died and his daughters were brought on record as his legal heirs. 3.2. He further submits that originally the property to an extent of Ac. 1.10.00 in Survey No. 74/1 situated at Ramachandrapuram Village of Bayyaram Mandal belongs to Mulpuri Appa Rao, who is the father of the writ petitioner and proposed respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and grandfather of proposed respondent No. 1. During his life time, he had executed a Will dated 14.11.1969 in favour of his four sons and two daughters bequeathing his properties and he died in the year 1970. After his death, his children acquired the said property. As per Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’ for brevity), proceedings were initiated by the competent authority, wherein the writ petitioner filed declaration on his behalf and on behalf of the family members of late Appa Rao. After his death, his children acquired the said property. As per Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’ for brevity), proceedings were initiated by the competent authority, wherein the writ petitioner filed declaration on his behalf and on behalf of the family members of late Appa Rao. In the said proceedings, the primary authority-Land Reforms Tribunal at Khammam, passed order dated 29.12.1976 and also order dated 29.01.1981 in C.C. No. 1812/Yld/75 holding that the declarant i.e. the writ petitioner is having excess land to an extent of Ac. 77.50 in Survey No. 74/1 Part, out of Ac. 110.00, and directed him to surrender under Section 10(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said orders, the writ petitioner filed appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (District Court), Khammam vide L.R.A.T. No. 31 of 1981 and the same was allowed by its order, dated 21.01.1992, remitting the matter to the primary authority with a direction to examine the records and pass orders afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner and others. 3.3. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the said order, the writ petitioner himself had given deposition before the primary authority/Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LRT) Khammam in C.C. No. 1812/Yld/75 deposing that his father late Mulpuri Appa Rao purchased the land in Survey No. 74/1 to an extent of Ac. 110.00 from Government through registered sale deed No. 2331 of Warangal District dated 17.04.1964 and he had executed Will Deed in his favour and in favour of his three brothers and two sisters and also produced death certificate of his father and other documents. 3.4. The primary Authority, after due verification of the records and also taking into consideration the deposition of the writ petitioner, held that the declarant is entitled to hold one standard holding since the total standard holding held by the family unit is less than the ceiling area under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the declarant did not held land in excess of ceiling area on notified date i.e. 01.01.1975 and requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, to re-back the land to the declarant, by its order, dated 03.01.1995. Aggrieved by the above said order, the State filed appeal vide L.R.A. No. 118 of 1995 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal at Warangal and the said appeal was dismissed, by its order dated 30.12.1995 and the same has become final. 3.5. He further submits that in the meanwhile, the Government has taken possession of the subject property and handed over to third parties. At that stage, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the land or to give alternative land and this Court allowed the same by its order dated 23.04.2002. Questioning the said order, Government filed W.A. No. 2073 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 01.04.2009 observing that learned Single Judge has already considered and found that the appellants are statutorily duty bound to restore back the possession to the respondent in as much as he does not hold any excess land and the title or possession of the State to such land cannot be justified. Therefore, the State cannot take advantage of situation created by it and respondent authorities are directed to provide alternative land. 3.6. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the writ petitioner is the elder brother of proposed respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and paternal uncle of proposed respondent No. 1. To safeguard the properties of original owner, namely late M. Appa Rao, the writ petitioner on his behalf and on behalf of the proposed respondents, who are the successors of late M. Appa Rao, has filed declaration in C.C. No. 1812/Yld/75, and he prosecuted the proceedings before all the authorities as family elder. Subsequently, disputes were arose between the writ petitioner and proposed respondents. Taking advantage of the same, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court without disclosing the real facts claiming entire property and seeking implementation of orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 and in W.A. No. 2073 of 2002, dated 01.04.2009. As per the orders of primary authority dated 03.01.1995, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.12.1995, the proposed respondents are having equal rights over the subject property on par with the writ petitioner. As per the orders of primary authority dated 03.01.1995, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.12.1995, the proposed respondents are having equal rights over the subject property on par with the writ petitioner. Hence, the petitioners/proposed respondents, who are none-other than family members of the writ petitioner, are very much necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the writ petition and they are also claiming the relief for implementation of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000, dated 23.04.2002. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner contended that the subject property was allotted to writ petitioner No. 1 towards his share and proposed respondents are not having any right or interest over the subject property and they are not entitled to come on record as party respondents, especially the writ petitioner is seeking for implementation of the orders passed by this Court dated 23.04.2002 in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 as well as in W.A. No. 2073 of 2002, dated 01.04.2009 and proposed respondents are not parties in any of the proceedings and the dispute is between the writ petitioner and the official respondents with regard to the subject property. 4.1. He further contended that the proposed respondents are straight away seeking share and rights over in the subject property basing upon the unregistered Will Deed and the said document is forged and fabricated one and for that, they have to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights over the properties. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the writ petitioner namely Mulpuri Vikra Markandeya Choudary as well as the proposed respondents are none other than the family members and they are successors of late Mulpuri Appa Rao. It is an undisputed fact that Mulpuri Appa Rao had purchased property to an extent of Ac. 110.00 in Survey No. 74/1 situated at Ramachandrapuram Village of Bayyaram Mandal through registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 2331, dated 17.04.1964 and he died in the year 1970. It is an undisputed fact that Mulpuri Appa Rao had purchased property to an extent of Ac. 110.00 in Survey No. 74/1 situated at Ramachandrapuram Village of Bayyaram Mandal through registered sale deed vide document bearing No. 2331, dated 17.04.1964 and he died in the year 1970. After his death, the Land Reforms Tribunal at Khammam, passed order dated 29.12.1976 in C.C. No. 1812/Yld/75, basing upon the declaration filed by the writ petitioner, holding that the declarant holds an extent of 1.5500 standard holding excess of the ceiling area, which is liable to be surrender under Section 10(1) of the Act and thereafter, the Primary Tribunal had passed order under Section 10(4) of the Act to surrender Ac. 77.50 cents out of Ac. 110-00 in Sy. No. 74/1 Part. Aggrieved by the said order, the declarant/writ petitioner filed L.R.A. No. 31 of 1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal (District Court) Khammam, and the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the primary Tribunal, with a direction to pass orders in accordance with law, by affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to put-forth such of the material as they are desires for placing it before the Primary Tribunal to substantiate their contentions by its order dated 21.09.1992. 6. Pursuant to the above said order, the Primary Tribunal had issued notices. Accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared before Primary Tribunal and he gave statement and also filed documents. The statement of the declarant/writ petitioner is extracted in the order of the Primary Tribunal, which reads as follows: “his father Late Mulpuri Appa Rao purchased the land in Sy. No. 74/1 to an extent of Ac. 110.00 of Ramchandrapuram (V), Bayyaram Mandal from Government through Registered sale deed No. 2331 of Warangal District, dated 17.4.1964. Further, he stated that his father executed Will deed in favour of his mother and (4) brothers and (2) sisters have produced death certificate of his father issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Vellore, dated 18.12.1970 and certified copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76 and produced all above original documents. Further, he stated that his father executed Will deed in favour of his mother and (4) brothers and (2) sisters have produced death certificate of his father issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Vellore, dated 18.12.1970 and certified copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76 and produced all above original documents. The Faisal Patti for the year 1975-76 showed that the mutation effected in the names of legal heirs of late Sri Mulpuri Appa Rao as follows: According to documentary evidence produced by the declarant in support of his claim and the directions of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam, the declarant will have the following to his holding. 7. That the Primary Tribunal after considering the contentions and also and after hearing both the parties by taking into consideration the deposition made by the declarant/writ petitioner passed order dated 03.01.1995, holding that the declarant is entitled to hold one Standard holding since the total standard holding held by the family unit is less than the ceiling area U/Sec. 4(1) of the Act, and the declarant did not held land in excess of ceiling area on the notified dated i.e. 01.01.1975. Questioning the said order, the State represented by the authorized officer filed statutory appeal invoking the provision of Section 21 of the Act vide L.R.A. No. 118 of 1995 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, contending that the declarant claiming rights over the property basing upon Will Deed dated 14.11.1969 and the same has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court and the Primary Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to consider the same. The appellate Tribunal after considering the contentions of the parties dismissed the appeal by its order dated 30.12.1995. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the order which reads as follows: “Assuming for a while that the un-registered will put up by the declarant before the lower tribunal is not genuine, the declarant admittedly got three more brothers and two sisters who are entitled to equal shares in the property of Ac. 110-00 in S. No. 74/1 of Ramachandrapuram Village even under intestate succession. Therefore, in any view of matter the declarant got only Acs. 18-14 cts. equivalent to Acs.18-35 cts in S. No. 74/1, which can also be computed to his holding. 110-00 in S. No. 74/1 of Ramachandrapuram Village even under intestate succession. Therefore, in any view of matter the declarant got only Acs. 18-14 cts. equivalent to Acs.18-35 cts in S. No. 74/1, which can also be computed to his holding. Therefore, the lower tribunal rightly held that the declarant possessed only 0.7170 SGH of land, while he is entitled for one standard holding. As such the declarant is not a all a surplus landholder and I could not filed any illegality or irregularity in the order of the lower tribunal dt. 3-1-1995 to interfere at the stage of this appeal. There are no merits in the appeal filed by the Govt and accordingly it shall fail.” 8. It further appears from the record that the order dated 30.12.1995 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in LRA No. 118/1995 has become final. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the land or to give alternative land and this Court allowed said writ petition by its order dated 23.04.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the Government has filed W.A. No. 2073 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 01.04.2009 observing that learned single judge has already considered and found that the appellants have statutorily duty bound to restore back the possession to the respondent in as much as he does not hold any excess land and that the title or possession of the State to such land cannot be justified. Questioning the same, Government filed SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed by its order dated 22-01-2010. 9. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed the above Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondent authorities in not implementing the orders passed by this Court dated 23.04.2002 in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 and in W.A. No. 2073 of 2002 dated 01.04.2009. During the pendency of the writ petition, sole petitioner died and his daughters were brought on record as L.Rs pursuant to the orders dated 08.12.2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2023. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, sole petitioner died and his daughters were brought on record as L.Rs pursuant to the orders dated 08.12.2023 in I.A. No. 1 of 2023. 10. The proposed respondents filed the above application in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 seeking permission to come on record as party respondents on ground that they are successors of late M. Appa Rao, who is original owner of the subject property, and they are also claiming rights over the subject property, pursuant to the orders passed by the Land Reforms Primary Tribunal dated 03.01.1995 as well as Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, dated 04.05.2017. The writ petitioners as well as proposed respondents are seeking implementation of the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 23.04.2002 in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 and in W.A. No. 2073 of 2002, dated 01.04.2009. 11. It is very much relevant to mention here that the provisions of 16(a) of Writ Rules, 1977, which reads as follows: “16(a) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without any application and on such terms as may appear to be just, order that the name of any party in improperly joined be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the petition, be added.” 12. The above Rule clearly says that if any person whose presence is necessary to enable the Court for effective adjudication of the matter, need to be added as a party. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the proposed respondents have not raised any dispute before any Tribunals/Courts claiming rights over the subject property, especially they are not parties before Land Reforms Tribunals or before this Court in earlier proceedings and they are not entitled to come on record as party respondents in the present writ petition, is not tenable under law, on the sole ground that Writ Petitioner No. 1/declarant himself has given statement and also filed documents before Land Reforms Tribunal/Addl. Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in CC. Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in CC. No. 1812/YLD/75, and basing upon the same, passed order dated 03.01.1995 holding that the declarant is entitled to hold one Standard holding since the total standard holding held by the family unit is less than the ceiling area U/Sec. 4(1) of the Act, and the declarant did not held land in excess of ceiling area, and the said order was confirmed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Warangal, in L.R.A. No. 118 of 1995 dated 30.12.1995. 14. In so far as the contentions of the respective parties that whether the proposed respondents are entitled share in the subject property on par with the writ petitioner/declarant, pursuant to the orders passed by the primary authority as well as appellate authority, and whether the proposed respondents have to approach the competent Civil Court and whether Will deed executed by late M. Appa Rao, is genuine or not, whether the subject property allotted to the share of Writ Petitioner No. 1, in partition, these aspects have to be adjudicated while deciding the main writ petition, and that stage is not yet reached. 15. In so far other contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the proposed respondents instead of filing independent writ petition filed the present application is not tenable under law on the sole ground that the main writ petition is filed only for implementation of the orders passed in W.P. No. 12093 of 2000 dated 23.04.2002 as confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 2073 of 2002 dated 01.04.2009 as both parties are seeking similar relief for implementation of said orders, especially they are also successors of late M. Appa Rao. 16. The settled proposition of law is that to render substantial justice to the parties, the procedural and technical defects will not come in the way. The nature of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner are purely procedural and technical in nature and the same are curable defects. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No. 1/2018 is allowed, accordingly. No costs.