Inclusion of company's name as 6th respondent does require the company to take legal action?

Yes the company which passed the contract to the contractor as well as the contractor who has been constructing or constructed the wall becomes necessary party because the cause of action arose from them.

Of course company is a necessary party to the lis.

The company as well the department would be having its law officers. What is their opinion /advice?

First I must provide my sincere thanks to all the senior experts for sharing their views.

I placed the query because of following reason:

As per my understanding the Department being the 1st party is primary resonsible.

But the Department to avoid its legal expenditure states that though they are 1st party but inclusion of Company name(6th Responden) make the company liable to bear all legal steps against  plaintiff.But the Company and contractor both stop the work and leave the site.

So , in this situation can the company desist itself form legal tussle?

Because once the Company steps in ,the Department being parent concern immediately transfer all its burden to the Company.

Regards

Abhijit

⚖️ Legal Position of Each Party Parent Department (Respondent 1) Owner of the land. Issued the directive to construct the wall. Primary responsibility to defend the writ petition, since the alleged encroachment arises from its decision and land ownership.

Concerned Officer (Respondent 2) Signed the document authorizing construction. May need to justify administrative actions. Company (Respondent 6) A state government company acting only as an executing agency.

No independent authority over the land. Its role in the case is limited to clarifying that it acted under instructions of the Parent Department. Not materially liable for encroachment claims. Contractor (Respondent 7) Engaged by the company to physically construct the wall. Bound only by the contract terms. No role in deciding land boundaries or ownership. Can file a short affidavit stating it was merely executing work as per specifications. No substantive defense required. 

📌 Why They Were Added as Respondents Courts often include all actors in the chain of execution to ensure that any injunction or order binds everyone. This prevents the company or contractor from continuing construction while the dispute is pending. Their inclusion is procedural, not substantive. 

🛡️ Practical Role of Company & Contractor They do not need to contest the merits of the encroachment claim. Their defense is limited to: Stating they acted under instructions. Clarifying they have no stake in the land. Confirming they will abide by the court’s directions. 

✅ Conclusion The Parent Department alone bears the responsibility to defend the writ petition. The Company and Contractor have no material role beyond filing clarifications to protect themselves from liability. They are formal respondents only to ensure the court’s orders bind them.

My sincare thanks to Sir Rama Chary Rachakonda for elaborately explain matter. It solves the company to take clear-cut decision on whether aught or not contest in the impuned matter.

Again thanks  with regards

Abhijit

As Respondents 6 (Company) and 7 (Contractor), although they acted only as the executing agencies under the direction of the Parent Department (R1), they have a material and essential role to defend the suit to protect themselves from adverse orders. They must appear before the court and file a formal counter-affidavit that clearly asserts their status as agents, confirms they acted within the scope of the Parent Department's directive, and states they hold no proprietary interest in the land, ensuring that any final judgment, particularly a mandatory injunction for demolition, is correctly directed against the Parent Department and that they are not held independently liable for the principal's alleged act of encroachment.