HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 12540 of 2011 DATED: 27.04.2011 Between:- Mir Hamed Ali Khan and seven others .. Appellant A N D K. Malathi Singh and five others .. Respondents O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in I.A. No. 320 of 2011 in L.G.C. 9 of 2009 by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. It is asserted that the father of the petitioners was the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.129.00 cents of land in Sy.No.58 situated in Daiara village, Narayanaguda Maktha, and after his demise, his exclusive right of ownership and lawful possession had been devolved on the petitioners. While so, respondent Nos.1 to 3 had illegally created and fabricated certain documents and by claiming right and possession over the property, they forcibly occupied the petitioners’ land. Then, the petitioners filed L.G.C. No.9 of 2009 before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, and the same is pending adjudication. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the present application in I.A. No. 320 of 2011 in L.G.C. No. 9 of 2009 under Section 65© of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of sale deeds dated 29th Azul 1344 Fasli, dated 20th Scheherwar 1345 Fasli and dated 21st Sheherwar 1344 Fasli. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that even though those documents are not relevant to the petition schedule land, the Special Court allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 ordering to receive them subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Special Court ought not to have allowed the application ordering to receive the documents by way of secondary evidence as they are irrelevant to the petition schedule land, and prays to set aside the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The impugned order reveals that the documents sought to be received by way of secondary evidence in L.G.C. No. 9 of 2009 are of the years 1934 and 1935, and as per the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the documents sought to be received were misplaced and respondent Nos.1 to 3 could not trace out them, and further, as per the additional affidavit filed by them, they have not created any equitable mortgage by depositing the original sale deeds with any financial institutions till date except executing a mortgage deed in favour of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as stipulated in the plan sanctioned and released to the 2nd petitioner herein and his family members in respect of the property fell to their share in the registered partition. The impugned order further reveals that as per the counter filed by the petitioners, the documents sought to be filed by way of secondary evidence are not relevant to the application land, for the reason that the documents are more than 75 years old. However, the Special Court allowed the petition ordering that the documents shall be received subject to proof relevancy and admissibility. The purport of the impugned order is only to receive the documents subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility. It is needless to mention that reception of secondary evidence is something different from marking of the documents. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the documents that are sought to be filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not relevant to the petition schedule land, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the same are received by the Special Court by way of secondary evidence in L.G.C.No. 9 of 2009. It is to be noticed that merely because secondary evidence is received the same does not amount to be a proof. Even if secondary evidence is produced and permitted, documents have to be proved in accordance with the principles of evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, we do no see any merits in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to raise appropriate objections with regard to the proof, relevancy and admissibility of the documents in L.G.C. No. 9 of 2009, if they are so advised, and on such objections being raised, the Special Court may consider them at the time of marking those documents. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 27.04.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J bcj