` THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14591 of 2002 DT.25.08.2011 Between: K.Krishna Reddy s/o K.Yellaiah … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad & Ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14591 of 2002 O R D E R:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner herein is the respondent No.2 in L.G.C.No.67/1989, on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. The respondents 2 to 7 herein also are the respondents in the said L.G.C. The said L.G.C was filed by the 1st respondent State herein to declare the petitioner herein and 4 others, who are the respondents therein as the grabbers of the L.G.C schedule property belonging to the Government. The said L.G.C was allowed by the Special Court by Judgment and Decree, dated 10-6-1992. Therefore, the petitioner herein and the others namely, Smt.Satyamma, S.Satyanarayana Reddy, S.Prakash Reddy and S.Keshava Reddy filed W.P.No.7898 of 1992 to set aside the Judgment and decree in the L.G.C dated 10-6-1992. This Court, by order dated 23-6-2000, allowed W.P.No.7898 of 1992 and set aside the Judgment of the Special Court in the said L.G.C and remitted the matter back to the Special Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the Judgment. This Court observed that Exs.B.1 to B.4 require a re-look and reconsideration in conjunction with Ex.B.12 sale deed in particular and other documents germane in the context for consideration. It is further observed that though a specific plea has been taken in the counter filed by the petitioner herein and the others, who are the respondents in the L.G.C that they perfected their right over the property by prescription being in adverse possession of the property no specific issue has been framed in that regard , and on the other hand, a passing observation has been made by the Special Court in para 33 of the Judgment on the assumption that the possession of the petitioners, who are the respondents in the L.G.C is permissive, and therefore, they cannot plead title over the property by means of adverse possession. The said issue has not been dealt with effectively as is required to be done for effective adjudication of the matter in view of the rival claims of the parties and it needs an effective adjudication by giving a clear cut finding. Even on this aspect, this Court is of the opinion that it requires a re-look and reconsideration by the Special Court inasmuch as this Court cannot appreciate the evidence on the point for an effective adjudication in the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this matter requires to be remitted back to the special Court for consideration afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations. The observation is only that the Special Court has not properly appreciated Exs.B.1 to B.4 in conjunction with Ex.B.12 sale deed and other documents, and while observing so, the matter was remitted back to the special Court for consideration afresh and also to consider the plea of adverse possession. The Point No.1 framed by the Special Court is whether the Government is the owner of the suit land, the point No.2 is whether the respondents in the LGC are the owners of the suit land for the reasons mentioned in their counter in the L.G.C, and the Point No.3 is whether the respondents grabbed the suit land. After remand, the petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in the L.G.C filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 to receive 10 additional documents on the ground that against the order passed by the Special Court in the said L.G.C, the High Court remitted the matter back for fresh consideration observing that Exs.B.1 to B.4 require a re-look and reconsideration in conjunction with the Ex.B.12 sale deed in particular and also other documents germane in the context. It is stated that the petitioner and others have filed a suit in 1984 for declaration and perpetual injunction, and in that suit certain documents have been filed, certified copies of which have been obtained, and therefore, the said documents require to be received by condoning the delay occurred to do so for effective disposal of the matter. The said application I.A.583 of 2002 in L.G.C.67 4-7of 1989 was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6-8-2002 on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court while remitting the matter by order dated 23-6-2000 in W.P.No.7898 of 1992 did not give any liberty to adduce further evidence, and therefore, it was not open for the Special Court to go beyond the judgment of remand of the High Court and give liberty to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code as stood in the statute up to 30-6-2002 duly apply to the Special Court under Order 13 Rule 2, and the application to receive the additional documents was filed on 10-6-2002, and thus, the special Court is empowered to receive the additional documents if good reasons are shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof earlier. Under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code Procedure Code the parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement, and the Court shall receive the documents so produced. It is also stated that the said application ought to have been considered in accordance with the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but not on the ground that the High Court did not specifically permit to adduce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orient Papers and Industries Ltd v. Tahsildar-Cum-Irrigation Officer and Others[1] in this regard. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing the matter in appeal against an order of Irrigation Officer, remanded the matter to the Irrigation Officer for re-enquiry and disposal. The said order of the appellate authority reads as follows: "The main point is whether lifting of water from river Ib is being done from a point which is within the reservoir. This is a question of fact and as admitted by the Government Pleader, proper enquiry to come to a finding that lifting is being done from a point within the reservoir has not been conducted. The case is therefore remanded to the learned Irrigation Officer-cum-Tahsildar, Jharsuguda for re-enquiry and disposal." Consequently a question arose as to whether the Irrigation Officer had to conduct fresh assessment of the matter adducing fresh evidence, and again the matter was referred to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then held that when the scope of the enquiry after the remand was not restricted by the appellate authority, it was certainly permissible for the irrigation Officer to examine all questions arising thereto. Therefore, the contention that the Irrigation Officer could not go into the question of fresh assessment of water and ought to have confined his findings only to the material available on that context was rejected by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in the instant case also this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and as it is an open remand and the scope of the enquiry is not restricted, the special Court ought to have received the documents. Learned counsel also has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajgopal v. Kishan Gopal[2] in that regard. In that case, while considering Second Appeal before the High Court concerned, the High Court allowed the Second appeal while dismissing the cross-objections filed, as in its opinion the question of limitation was not correctly decided by the Lower Court and accordingly the decree passed by the first appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the first appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. The trial Court considered the matter afresh and objections of the cross-objector were also considered, against which, appeal was filed again. When the matter came up before the High Court, the High Court held that the trial Court was not right in considering the contentions of the cross-objectors as the cross-objections filed were dismissed by the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that when the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, it was open for the High Court to conduct enquiry and also held that the trial Court rightly considered the contentions of the cross- objectors also. It is not in dispute that in the said case the entire matter was remanded for consideration afresh, and it was not a case of limited remand, in other words but it was a case of open remand. In both the aforesaid cases, the remand was open remand but not limited remand whereas, on the perusal of the remand order of this Court in W.P.No.7898 of 1992, it is clear that as the Special Court had not properly appreciated the documents of the respondents in Exs.B.1 to B.4, and as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is limited to see whether the Special Court has committed any illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction, the matter was remitted back to the special Court to re-look into and reconsider Exs.B.1 to B.4 in conjunction with Exs.B.12 and other documents germane in the context for consideration. With regards to the plea of adverse possession taken by the respondents in their counter, we are of the opinion that when the remand is on the specific question to have a re-look and reconsideration of Exs.B1 to B.12 in conjunction with Ex.B.12 sale deed and other documents germane for considering the plea of the respondent, the same aspect of adverse possession is to be considered within the ambit of the evidence already recorded. For the aforesaid reasons, as we are of the opinion that the remand in the present case is a limited remand and is not an open remand, therefore the Special Court has rightly dismissed the said application. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V. ESWARAIAH,J) _________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J) DATE:25-08-2011 grk TE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY (The order of the Bench pronounced by Hon’ble Sri justice Eswaraiah) WRIT PETITION No.14591 of 2002 DATE: 25-08-2011 [1] (1998) 7 SCC 303 [2] (2003) 10 SCC 653