THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.19677 of 2010 ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) -- The Petitioner in this Writ Petition questions the action of the first respondent - Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, represented by its Registrar, in refusing to receive the implead petition along with re-opening petition in L.G.C. No.20 of 2002, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the first respondent – Special Court to receive the same. The case of the petitioner is that he is the joint owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.01 gunta in Sy.Nos.61 and 64 of Tolichowki, Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District along with the respondent No.3 and two other brothers viz., Prahlad Singh and Niranjan Singh. The said land was purchased out of the income derived from the joint family business and the said land was not partitioned. It is stated that one of his brother filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.698 of 1994 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in which a compromise was recorded and final decree was passed on 30-08-1994 and even according to the said compromise, the said land on which Manna Singh Ice Factory is existing was kept in joint possession of the brothers, who have mutually agreed that the petitioner has got 20% of the share. While so, the respondent No.3 revealed that the respondent No.2 - State of Andhra Pradesh filed L.G.C. No.20 of 2002 on the file of the Respondent No.1 – Special Court alleging that the respondent No.3 grabbed the said nala covered by T.S.No.26, Block-B, Ward No.12 of Hakeempet Village. The respondent No.3 did not reveal about the pendency of the said case to the petitioner and the Government filed the said L.G.C. against the respondent No.3 alone deliberately and intentionally without making the petitioner as a party respondent to the said L.G.C. It is stated that he was kept in dark all along regarding pending of the said L.G.C. No.20 of 2002 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and recently when he came to know about the pendency of the said case and the matter was heard and reserved for judgment, he filed an application to implead him along with another application to reopening the case on 05-08-2010, but the respondent No.1 – Special Court refused to receive the same. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of the Civil Procedure in the said proceedings at any stage as he being joint owner and possessor of the said land, but the Special Court is not receiving the said application. The petitioner has not filed any proof in support of the said allegations that he has filed the said petition in the Court of the Special Court and the same has been refused to be received. Any application can be filed in the Registry and the question of not receiving any petition even in a disposed matter or a matter reserved for judgment does not arise, since such petition would be processed in an appropriate manner. The petitioner has not even sent the said application by any other means to the Special Court. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that under the special instructions given to the Office, his application was intentionally and wilfully not received. The Writ Petition is misconceived. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the state of admission. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 11th August, 2010. Note : Issue C.C. by 12-08-2010. B/O Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.19677 of 2010 Date : 11-08-2010 Between : Vijay Singh .. Petitioner and The Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, rep. by its Registrar, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tankbund, Hyderabad and 2 Others. .. Respondents