THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.22310 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner-Trust is the respondent in the L.G.C.No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, filed by the respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh alleging that the petitioner herein grabbed the land to an extent of 20 cents out of the land admeasuring Ac.234.84 cents in Sy.No.49 situated at Kurnool Mandal and Village and constructed unauthorized structures thereon without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and as such, the activity of the petitioner comes within the definition of land grabbing activity under Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”). It is stated that notice was served on the petitioner three or four days prior to 02-11-2010, on which date, the LGC was posted for appearance of the petitioner. On 02-11-2010, as the petitioner did not appear, he was set ex-parte. The petitioner filed an application on 26- 11-2010 to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 02-11-2010, but the said application was said to have been returned on the ground that authorisation letter was not legitimate. It is stated that the said application was represented on 04-12-2010 enclosing the certified copy of the authorization letter, which was again returned for the very self same ground and ultimately, the application filed by the petitioner was not persuaded in proper manner, that the matter underwent six adjournments from 02-11-2010 to 17-03-2011, and that the applicant i.e., Tahsildar, Kurnool Mandal, was examined and ex-parte order was passed on 17-03- 2011. To set aside the said ex-parte order, the petitioner filed I.A.No.370 of 2011 on 16-04-2011 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the court below by order, dated 22-06-2011, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier application filed to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 02-11-2010, was not considered properly, though authorization letter was enclosed, and when the application filed earlier to set aside the ex-parte order was pending, the L.G.C. itself was decreed ex-parte without any justification. It is the case of the respondent that when L.G.C. was posted on 02- 11-2010 for appearance of the petitioner and his counter, admittedly, the petitioner did not appear and the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 02-11-2010 was returned and ultimately the ex-parte decree was passed on 17-03-2011. We are of the opinion that when an application is filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the court below ought to have considered the said application on certain terms rather than decreeing the L.G.C. ex-parte. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner, we are inclined to allow the writ petition on certain terms. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the A.P.Legal Services Authority, within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.370 of 2011 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 17-03-2011 stands allowed and L.G.C.No.27 of 2010 would be restored to its file, in default, the impugned order holds good. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date : 08-08-2011 Prv