HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. NO. 29260 OF 2010 Monday, the Seventeenth day of October, Two Thousand and Eleven Between M.Rama Rao and others Petitioners AND Prema N.Somayaji and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard. The petitioners herein are the respondents 11 to 15 in the L.G.C. No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The said L.G.C. was filed by the respondents 1 to 33 against the petitioners herein and the respondents 34 to 61 to declare them as the land grabbers and to evict them from the application schedule plots, said to be belonging to the applicants and to deliver vacant possession of the same to an extent of 16950 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 33/10, 33/11 and 33/112 situated at Chjengicherla village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District. The petitioners herein have filed an application in I.A. No. 882 of 2010 in L.G.C.No. 83 of 2003 in August, 2008 for receiving the photocopy of the agreement of sale Dated 20.4.1968. In the affidavit, it is stated that the respondents 5 to 7 in the L.G.C. sold the plots of land comprising Ac.21.00 of land in Sy.No. 33/10 and 33/11 to various purchasers including the petitioners herein under various registered sale deeds and in fact the said respondents 5 to 7 and one Mr. Biharilal and others jointly sold the plots to the petitioners herein i.e. the respondents 11 to 15. in the L.G.C. It is stated that the respondents 5 to 7 in the L.G.C. filed a suit in O.S. No. 54 of 1985 for declaration and perpetual injunction. It is also stated that the respondents 5 to 7 in the L.G.C. entered into an agreement of sale dated 20.4.1968 with Biharilal and others and the vendor and others delivered physical possession of the said property in part performance of the said agreement of sale and the said Biharilal and others sold plots under Exs. B-23, 25, 26 and 28 in favour of the petitioners herein and the said Biharilal also executed two registered G.P.As. in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 and also executed the sale deeds Exs. B-23, 25, 26 and 28 on behalf of the Biharilal under the said G.P.As. It is stated that there is a reference of agreement of sale dated 20.4.1968 in the sale deeds Exs. B-23, 25, 26 and 28. In the above L.G.C., the petitioners filed IA No. 1150 of 2009 seeking to summon the respondents 5 to 7 to produce the original agreement of sale deed dated 20.4.1968 executed by Biharilal and others in favour of the respondents 5 to 7 and accordingly the respondent No.6 was examined as RW-6. It is stated that the original agreement of sale dated 20.4.1968 is not in the custody of the petitioners and the efforts made by them to produce the original deed were of no avail and therefore, they have no option except to produce the photocopy of the agreement of sale dated 20.4.1968 as secondary evidence and requested to receive the same. The sixth respondent in the L.G.C. was examined as RW-6 and he stated that he along with his brothers entered into an agreement dated 20.4.1968 to purchase Ac.21.00 of land in Sy.Nos. 33/10, 33/11 and 33/12 of Chengicherla village from Biharilal and others. They also filed OS No. 54 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy District for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed. It is stated that the said agreement of sale, executed in his favour and in favour of his brothers is not in his custody, but it is in the custody of Mr. Kamalakar Reddy. When the Xerox copy of the said agreement of sale was shown to him, he stated that unless he would see the original, he could nnot vouch the document. A counter has been filed denying all the allegations made in the affidavit and stating that no credence or validity can be given to the so- called agreement and the said agreement never existed and it is an afterthought creation. It is also stated that the said document cannot be looked into muchless can be received as secondary evidence. It is stated that the matter was posted for hearing of the L.G.C. and at that stage the application was filed with an ulterior motive to drag on the proceedings without any bonafides. The Special Court dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 observing that though the petitioner herein contended that notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued to the respondents 5 to 7 to produce the original document but in fact, they never issued any notice. It is also observed that the respondent No.6 (RW-6) in his evidence stated that the original document now offered to be filed is not available with him and it is with Ravi Kamalakar Reddy, who is not a party to the proceedings. As no notice for the production of the said document under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued and in fact no such copy of the notice was filed before the Special Court, it is observed that it is open for the petitioners to seek the production of the document from Ravi Kamalakar Reddy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the said application filed by the petitioners is frivolous. When it is their claim that the respondents 5 to 7 got rights over the property through Biharilal and others and they got rights over the property from the respondents 5 to 7, it is enough if the rights of Biharilal and others over the property originally were established. The original claimants in the L.G.C. are not claiming rights over the property through Biharilal and others. Therefore, the subsequent agreement of sale or sale deeds, if any, executed by the vendors of the petitioners or the successor-in-title of Biharilal are irrelevant for the purpose of the consideration of the said L.G.C. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy October 17, 2011 MAS