HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27187 of 2007 13-2-2008 Between: Singireddy Bal Reddy and others … Petitioners AND The Special Court – II under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, rep. by its Registrar, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27187 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 03-12-2007 passed in I.A.Nos.994 and 995 of 2007 in L.G.C.No.79 of 2002 on the file of Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents 4 to 6 in the LGC are the writ petitioners. They filed I.A.No.994 of 2007 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the forfeiture order dated 10-10-2007 and to permit them to continue the cross- examination of PW-2. The application was resisted by the contesting respondents. The Special Court after perusing the docket proceedings and recording the conduct of the said respondents dismissed the said I.A. The respondents 4 to 6 also filed I.A.No.995 of 2007 to recall PW- 2 for cross-examination, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition by respondents 4 to 6 in LGC. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for contesting respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that since valuable rights are involved, the petitioners want to cross-examine PW-2 and therefore, an opportunity may be given to them to complete the cross-examination of PW-2 in the interest of justice and if necessary, by imposing costs. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent contended that number of opportunities were given, but the writ petitioners have not cross-examined PW-2 and that they have forfeited that right. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, the case had been adjourned seven times for continuation of cross-examination of PW-2 and that PW-2 had been present in the court for that purpose and ultimately, the respondents 6 to 9 have forfeited the right to cross-examine PW-2. Thus, the conduct of respondents 4 to 6 has to be deprecated, as rightly recorded by the Special Court. However, having regard to the submission of counsel for petitioners and in the interest of justice and having regard to the allegations against the respondents 4 to 6, we feel it just and equitable to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioners – respondents 4 to 6 to cross-examine PW-2, who had attended the court seven times, subject to the following conditions: 1) The writ petitioners – respondents 4 to 6 shall complete the cross-examination of PW-2 in one sitting on the date to be fixed by the Special Court, and 2) the writ petitioners shall pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the applicants in L.G.C.No.79 of 2002 within two weeks from today. Failure to comply with any of the above condition will revive the impugned orders. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be and are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 13-02-2008 bsc