HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 12401 of 2011 DATED: 27.04.2011 Between:- K. Srinivas Rao .. Petitioner A N D Epen Joseph and 17 others .. Respondents O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 23.11.2010 in I.A. No. 1189 of 2010 passed in L.G.C. No. 79 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court constituted under the A .P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The petitioner asserts that he purchased Plot No.8 admeasuring 161.11 square yards under registered sale deed dated 14.09.2005 from the 2nd respondent, who in turn purchased from other respondents and that plot is located in DLR Enclave which was formed out of Sy. Nos. 621, 628 and 629 of Kapra village. While so, it is stated that the 1st respondent, who is claiming to be the owner of Plot No.31 situated in Sy.No. 630 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District by virtue of a Will dated 04.09.2003 said to have been executed by his father, filed L.G.C. No. 79 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 17 are land grabbers of his plot. During the course of trial, the 1st respondent herein filed the present application in I.A. No. 1189 of 2010 seeking appointing of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the land and find out the dimensions belonging to his land. It is stated that Plot No.31, allegedly belonging to the 1st respondent herein, does not exist on ground. It is further stated that the layout in which Plot No.31 falls is a fabricated one containing over-writings and also a paper is pasted on the back side of the layout, and further, the original permit No.98/P3/H/91 dated 01.07.1997 alleged to have been issued by the HUDA as stated in L.G.C. No.79 of 2006 is also not reflected in Ex.A9 – proposed layout. Further, the 1st respondent in L.G.C. No. 79 of 2006 has shown his schedule property with certain specific boundaries, but in Ex.A9 – proposed layout filed by him during the course of evidence, there is an additional endorsement that it is also a final layout. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the Special Court, without assigning any valid and tenable reasons, passed the impugned order merely appointing an Advocate Commissioner to localize the land in question and find out the dimensions belonging to the 1st respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Will alleged to have been executed by the father of the 1st respondent on 04.09.2003, shall have to be probated as per mandatory requirement, but in fact, it is not probated, as such, the 1st respondent cannot claim right, title and possession independently and exclusively over the land in question against other respondents. He has further contended that the impugned order passed by the Special Court is devoid of any material particulars and suffers from legal infirmities, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. From a careful analysis of the material on record, it appears that certain disputed questions of fact and law are involved for effective adjudication of L.G.C. which is pending consideration before the Special Court, and during the course of trial, the present application is filed by the 1st respondent. Further, the order impugned in this writ petition reveals that it is totally bereft of any material particulars such as it does not refer to any pleadings or the case of the petitioner nor does it disclose any probable reasons warranting appointment of an advocate commissioner for localizing the land in question nor does it reveal any averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the L.G.C. Normally, in cases relating to land grabbing where claims of individuals with regard to right, title and possession over their lands are involved, such cases have to be necessarily dealt with by means of oral and documentary evidence. A person cannot be permitted to gather evidence by way of mere appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The impugned order does not refer to any pleadings and counter pleadings and suffers from legal infirmities. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Special Court, Hyderabad for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 27.04.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj