HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 4742 OF 2009 Thursday, the First day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Sabavat Rukman Naik Petitioner AND R.Venkatarami Reddy and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 4742 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directing against the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, dismissing I.A. No. 775 of 2009 praying to set aside the order forfeiting right of the petitioner to cross examine RW-2. The petitioner herein filed the above L.G.C. No. 56 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, contending that the respondents have grabbed his land in Plot No. 77/19 in Sy. No. 102/3 of Hakeempet village. He filed the above I.A. seeking to set aside the order dated 28.07.2009 forfeiting his right to cross examine RW-2. The Special Court by the order impugned herein dismissed the application observing that the specific understanding that the counsel for the petitioner shall cross examine RW2 and then only the above I.A. will be allowed on payment of Rs.1000/- ordered earlier, was not fulfilled. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed inter alia contending that the Special Court erred in dismissing the application even before lunch session more particularly when the Special Court was requested for a pass over of the case. As can be seen from the order dated 9.9.2009 passed in the above application, the petition was allowed subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the contesting respondents on or before 17.09.2009. On 17.09.2009, the matter stood adjourned to 18.09.2009 for payment of costs with an observation that the petition will be allowed if RW-2 is cross examined by the counsel,but on 18.09.2009 the petition was dismissed inasmuch as by 1.00 p.m. the counsel for the petitioner was not present to cross examine the witness. It is case of the petitioner that his counsel was on the way to the Special Court and in the meantime the Special Court dismissed the petition, as it had to take up another case after lunch. In view of the above circumstances, the order impugned herein is illegal and is not in consonance with the orders passed by it earlier. Consequently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the Special Court to dispose of the L.G.C. No.56 of 2002 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 1, 2010 MAS