THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24595 of 2009 Dated:09.12.2009 Between: V.Seshu Gopala Rao. …Petitioner and The Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, and another. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24595 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner statedly is owner of a plot admeasuring 200 square yards in R.S.No.92 situated at Mansoorabad Village of Saroornagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. He purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 06.01.2004 from Sri Marella Chandra Mouli. Second respondent herein approached the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act for declaration and for other consequential reliefs against the owners of various plots in R.S.No.92. The same, being L.G.C.No.28 of 2005, is at the stage of pleadings. On 23.07.2009 the petitioner herein, who is respondent No.140, was set ex parte for the reason that he did not file the counter affidavit within the stipulated time. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1006 of 2009, to set aside the order dated 23.07.2009, and to receive the counter affidavit. By impugned order dated 02.11.2009 the learned Special Court dismissed the application taking a view that there are no grounds to set aside the order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Notice ordered by this Court has been duly served on second respondent, and first respondent is represented by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Grabbing). As a very short question is involved, with the consent of the Counsel the matter can be disposed of. The petitioner herein was set ex parte on 23.07.2009. In his application, being I.A.No.1006 of 2009, he has stated that petitioner in the LGC impleaded him subsequently, that he was not served with the copies of the petitions and documents, and therefore, he obtained copies through other Counsel and filed written statement. He, therefore, sought to set aside the order. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. A perusal of the material on record would show that the petitioner herein was set ex parte on 23.07.2009. He, therefore, filed the interlocutory application for setting aside the same. In view of the affidavit averments, to say that there are no grounds to set aside the order already passed may not be correct. The petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent No.140, and therefore, he could not file the counter affidavit in time. As held by the Supreme Court in Kailash v Nanhku time prescribed for filing written statement can be relaxed in appropriate cases, and that the Court is vested with such power to accept the written statement. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not file the counter, as he required material documents to do so. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner can be allowed on the following terms. The petitioner herein shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Grabbing) within a period of one week from today. On condition of such payment this writ petition is allowed and the order in I.A.No.1006 of 2009 in LGC.No.28 of 2005 is set aside. The petitioner is given ten days time to file written statement before the Special Court. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 09.12.2009 vs