THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33435 OF 2010 DATED 31ST DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Smt.Illandula Venkatamma … Petitioner And Smt.Dr.P.Naga Neelima and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.33435 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per SK,J) Respondent 2 in L.G.O.P.No.1709 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed a petition therein in I.A.No.2319 of 2010, along with some of the other respondents, to drop the proceedings in the L.G.O.P. on the ground that no specific cause of action was shown and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 were not attracted on facts. The Court below, by order dated 24.09.2010, dismissed the said I.A. Hence, this writ petition. The case of the petitioner in the L.G.O.P. was that the respondents therein grabbed the schedule property and raised temporary illegal structures in the last week of October, 2005. She claimed that upon her return to the city, she lodged a complaint with the Musheerabad Police Station on 18.11.2005 in this regard. Disputing these aspects, the respondents in the L.G.O.P. contested the matter. The I.A. from which the present writ petition arises was an attempt on the part of some of the respondents in the L.G.O.P. to get the proceedings dropped at the pre-trial stage itself. The Court below, taking note of the fact that the defence put forth by the respondents in the L.G.O.P. on the basis of documents had to be established during the course of the trial, was of the opinion that it would be premature at the pre-trial stage to conclude that the acts alleged against the respondents in the L.G.O.P. did not constitute ‘land grabbing’. Sri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner herein, contended that the Court below ought to have examined the matter on merits at this stage to verify the validity of his client’s claim instead of putting it off till after the trial. We however find no substance in this contention. The respondents admittedly place reliance on various documents in support of their defence against the claim of the petitioner in the L.G.O.P. This defence would necessarily have to be tried and tested during the process of trial. The petitioner cannot pre- empt the said process by seeking adjudication at this preliminary stage. We therefore find no error in the order under challenge. The Wit Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties shall bear their own costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 31ST DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR