IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22988 of 2008 Between: Dogga Haribabu S/o.Sri Mallu Naidu Kapulupadu Post Bheemilli Mandal Visakhapatnam Dsitrict, GPA Holder B.Yerri Naidu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Talluru Venaiah S/o.Late Narasaiah r/o.Lakshminarayanapuram Piduru Post, Manubolu Mandal, Nellore District 2 C.S.Naidu S/o.Not known r/o.Flat No.5, Sai Nilayam,besides Forest office R.K.Mission Road, Visakhapatnam 3 Thamarana Ramakoti S./o.Late Sanyasi Naidu R/o.D.No.4012, Bangaru Metta village Buchayyapet Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in IA.No.135/2007 in LGC.No.39/2006 on the ﬁle of the special court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and set aside the same as illegal, and arbitrary, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22988 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri G.M, J.) 1 This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.A.No.135 of 2007 in LGC No.39 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2 The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0-40 dry land covered by patta No.257 in Sy.No.350/12 of Kapulapadu village by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.04.003 from his vendor K.Sanyasi Rao and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Bheemunipatnam has also issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land on 12.07.2003. It is further stated that as the ﬁrst respondent tried to interfere with his possession over the land, the petitioner filed O.S.No.449 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration and consequential permanent injunction and the same is pending. 3 It is further stated that the petitioner received notice from the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in an application ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC proposing to implead him as one of the respondents in LGC No.39 of 2006, which was filed basing on the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer Bheemunipatnam wherein the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer stated that himself and the Mandal Surveyor have inspected the lands on ground and identiﬁed that the petitioner has encroached the land purchased by the ﬁrst respondent to an extent of Ac.0- 11 in Sy.No.350/9A and constructed a compound wall and had also erected a gate at the eastern side of the schedule land and raised plantation and ﬂower garden in the land. However, in spite of his protest, the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Court had allowed the said application without giving any reasons solely basing on the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. Hence this Writ Petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer appears to have conducted the alleged inspection behind his back and without giving any notice to the petitioner as required under the provisions of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and that the petitioner has purchased land in Sy.No.350/12A and 350/9 to a total extent of Ac.0-40 cents whereas the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has reported that the petitioner has encroached the land in Sy.No.350/9A to an extent of Ac.0-11 and hence the alleged report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has no credence to be acted upon and the ﬁling of the application to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents in the LGC is nothing but harassment with an intention to get unlawful gain from him and as such the L.G.C. itself is not maintainable. He further contended that the order passed by the Special Court does not contain any reasons and it is only one line order and hence the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5 Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiﬀ or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiﬀ or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court eﬀectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added”. 6 A perusal of the above provision clearly indicates that if the court feels that the presence of any person before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved eﬀectively and completely, such person be added as one of the parties to the proceedings. The Special court in the case on hand had relied on the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who is said to have done the inspection physically and submitted the report to the Court stating that the petitioner has encroached the land. Accordingly, the Special Court has exercised its jurisdiction by allowing the application ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent, of course without giving suﬃcient reasons. But it does not mean that the order itself is unjust and improper. In that view of the matter, the appropriate course to be adopted by the petitioner is to contest the case and prove that he is no way concerned with the alleged encroachment, but not by way of filing this Writ Petition. 7 In view of the above, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the present Writ Petition and hence is dismissed. In the circumstances no order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22.10.2008 ------------------------------------ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. Kvsn