IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO : 479 of 2005 Between: 1. Tadavarthi Venkateswarlu S/o Sundaramaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-4, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur 2. Duddukuri China Sivaiah S/o Guravaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur 3. Duddukuri Venkateswarlu S/o Guravaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur 4. Pagadala Kasaiah S/o Kotaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-9, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur 5. Pagadala Nageswara Rao S/o Kotaiah R/o D. NO. 25-14-7, Srinivas Rao pet, 9th Lane, Opp: ILTD, Guntur .... PETITIONER(S) AND 1. K. Anantha Padmanabha Swami S/ R/o Jualakallu, Guntur District 2. K.K. Pardhasaradhi S/o K. Ananthapadmanabhaswamy R/o BHEL, Hyderabad 3. K.K. Venu Gopal Swamy S/o Not Known to the petitioner 4. K.K. Vaschapathi 5. KK. Varada Chari S/o Not Known to the petitioners 6. K.K. Venkata Ranganadha Swamy 7. K.K. Andalamma W/o (the Address for Service of the Notice to the respondnets 2 to 7 is that of R2 Senior Manager, BHEL, Hyderabad 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in dismissing IA No. 525/03 in LGC 10/96, dated 02-07-2004 as unconstitutional and consequently declare the petitioners have the right to be heard by the special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act after reopening the case in LGC 10of 1996 and pass order or orther orders Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7.:MR.PARAVASTU KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.479 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This petition is filed seeking to assail the order dated 2-7- 2004 in I.A.No.525 of 2003 in L.G.C.No.10 of 199,6 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 12-02-1997 made in LGC.No.10 of 1996, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 7 herein filed LGC.No.10 of 1996 against the petitioners herein and 15 others for a declaration that the petitioners herein and others are the land grabbers in respect of 880 sq.yards in Sy.No.55 and T.S.No.510 of Guntur Village, Guntur District and for evicting them from the said land and for delivery of vacant possession of the same in favour of the respondents 1 to 7 herein. The notices in the LGC were directed to be issued against the petitioners herein and 15 others. As seen from the impugned judgment, the notices sent by registered post were returned as ‘refused’ by the respondents therein i.e., the petitioners herein and 15 others. Thereafter, the respondents in the LGC were set ex parte on 25-04-1996. Subsequently, after full-fledged trial and after recording the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court allowed the LGC and declared that the respondents 1 to 7 herein are the owners of the schedule property and the petitioners herein and 15 others are the land grabbers and consequently directed the petitioners herein and others to vacate the schedule property and deliver possession of the same within two months to the respondents 1 to 7 herein. Pursuant to the said judgment of the Special Court, proceedings were issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, directing eviction of the petitioners herein and others through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur in 1998. As seen from the record, the said proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer were duly served on the petitioners herein and some other occupants of the lands. The petitioners herein did not question the said proceedings nor did they file any application for setting aside the ex parte order or the ex parte decree granted in LGC.No.10 of 1996. It is only in the year 2003, for the first time, they have chosen to file I.A.No.525 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree dated 12-02-1997 on the ground that they were not aware of the passing of the ex parte order or the ex parte decree in the LGC. 4. The Special Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the notices issued to the petitioners herein and others were returned as refused and, therefore, they were set ex parte and subsequently the Revenue Divisional Officer issued the proceedings for eviction of the petitioners herein and others, pursuant to the directions of the Special Court, which were served on the petitioners herein in the year 1998. The Special Court further observed that petitioners have not taken any steps and, therefore, they lack bona fides and it is nothing but abuse of process of law and was intended only to drag on the eviction proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are daily wage earners engaged in construction work. Neither the petitioners nor their family members will be available at their houses when the postman sought to serve the notices and, therefore, the endorsements of refusal appearing on the notices are not genuine. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 would strongly oppose the same on the ground that the petitioners were aware of the ex parte order passed against them and also the ex parte decree and with a view to drag on the proceedings and to squat on the premises as long as possible, they did not question the said proceedings till 2003. 6. As seen from the record, the notices were, in fact, issued to the petitioners herein and others in LGC through registered post and they were all returned unserved as ‘refused’. There are absolutely no grounds to suspect the genuineness of the endorsement made by the postal authorities. Further, after regular trial, the land grabbing case was allowed, based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Even after the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued the proceedings to the Mandal Revenue Officer for eviction of the petitioners herein and others from the schedule land pursuant to the directions of the Special Court and though the said proceedings were duly served on the petitioners herein in the year 1998 itself, they have not chosen to approach the Court seeking to set aside the ex parte order and decree passed against them. They have slept over the matter for another five years and filed application in I.A.No.525 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13 only in the year 2003. It is obvious that the petitioners have not chosen to take any immediate steps to vindicate their rights, if any. Only with a view to continue their squatting on the premises to the extent possible and only after their physical eviction, they have rushed to the Court to perpetuate their unauthorized squatting on the land. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners cannot be countenanced or encouraged. As rightly observed by the Special Court, the conduct of the petitioners herein is nothing but abuse of process of law. They have successfully dragged the matter for more than seven years for thwarting the eviction proceedings. The Special Court has rightly rejected the petition on the ground that it lacks bona fides. 7. As the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application were not duly established by the petitioners herein, the impugned order rightly dismissing the said application does not call for any interference. There are absolutely no merits in the writ petition. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th December 2008 Lrkm ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}