IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9792 of 2008 Between: 1 Y.Bal Raju S/o.Y.Mallaiah R/o.1-4-880/36,Gandhinagar, New Bakaram Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 Smt.Y.B.Madhavi W/o.Y.Bal Raju R/o.1-4-880/36,Gandhinagar, New Bakaram Musheerabad,Hyderabad 3 Sri Y.B.Sai Kiran S/o.Y.Bal Raju R/o.1-4-880/36,Gandhinagar, New Bakaram Musheerabad,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad 2 Sri B.Sohan Lal S/o.B.Anantharam, Died per LRs Sri B.Shyam, S/o.B.Sohanlal R/o.H.No.3-108, Sri Satya Anantha`s Tirumala Towers Flat No.103, Gangaram, Chandangar, Serilingamaplly Mandal, SRanga Reddy District 3 Sri K.Krishna Appala Naidu S/o.Appa Rao R/o.H.No.2-113/2/3 Sainath Colony Chandanagar,Serilingampally R.R.District 4 J.Sreenivasa Rao S/o.J.Govardhan Rao R/o.H.No.2-113/2/3 Sainath Colony Chandanagar,Serilingampally R.R.District 5 Sri V.Ramurthy S/o.Venkateswarla Sharma R/o.Plot No.23, Sainath Colony Chandanagar,Serilingampally R.R.District 6 N.Jagadishwar Reddy S/o.N.Somi Reddy R/o.H.No.1-4-249/37/7, Suryapet, Nalgonda District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 8.4.2008 in IA.No.227 of 2008 in LGC .No.6/2004 of the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.9792 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 8-4-2008 passed in I.A.No.227 of 2008 in LGC No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The applicant - second respondent herein filed LGC against the petitioners and four others. While so, the petitioners filed the above I.A. under Section 8(2-A) of the said Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and Rules 13 and 17 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 requesting the Special Court to reject LGC as not maintainable. The case of petitioners is that they have constructed the building after obtaining permission from competent authority and the property was purchased under valid sale deed executed by the owners and that the property has been developed into dwelling houses and commercial institutions. Further, the Special Court has to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 of the said Rules before taking cognizance of LGC. The second respondent herein resisted the application contending that the present application is filed when the case is posted for the evidence of petitioners herein, who are arrayed as respondents in LGC, and they had been seeking adjournments for producing their witnesses and the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was also filed and some documents were also marked. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and perusing the docket orders, dismissed I.A. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI KHAN Vs. SHAHSUN FINANCE LTD [1] and contended that the Special Court has to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the said Rules before taking cognizance of LGC. Learned counsel further contended that the plea of maintainability of LGC can be raised either at the threshold or even after taking cognizance of the case. 5. In the instant case, the LGC was filed in the year 2004 and the present application was filed in the year 2008 i.e. after four years. The trial has already commenced. The Tribunal after perusing the docket had recorded that the evidence on behalf of the applicant in LGC was closed on 22-8-2007 and the case was posted for the evidence of the petitioners herein. The Tribunal further found that the evidence in affidavit (chief) was also filed by first petitioner and the case was posted for marking of documents and cross-examination of first petitioner. The present I.A. is filed raising the plea of maintainability after four years and the Special Court has considered the applicability of Rule 6 and found that the principle laid down in the said case does not apply to the case on hand. It is specifically alleged by the applicant that the petitioners herein are landgrabbers and trial had already begun. 6. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 09-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] AIR 2005 AP 274