IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25833 of 2008 Between: M. Sreedevi D/o. M. Ranga Chari R/o. H.No. 7-79, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chinnagari Muttaiah died per LRs Respondent 10 & 11 2 Engarigalla Maisaiah S/o. Pentaiah H.No. 4-33, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 3 Borra Yellaiah S/o. Seethaiah H.No. 4-17, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 4 Chilveru Mallaiah S/o. Achaiah H.No. 4-82, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 5 Korvi Ramuloo S/o. Seethaiah H.No. 4-74, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 6 Yemjala Jangaiah S/o. Maisaiah H.No. 4-27, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 7 Borra Maisaiah S/o. Narsaiah H.No. 4-97, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 8 K. Peddi Raju S/o. Subba Raju H.No. 8-71, New Dilsukhnagar, Behind Rajadhani Theatre, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 9 Ushagari Rajaiah S/o. Achaiah Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 10 Channagari Ballamma W/o. Late Ch. Muthaiah (Major) H.No. 4-32, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 11 Channagari Babu (Major) S/o. Late Ch. Muthaiah H.No. 4-32, Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R. Dist. 12 The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the judgement and decree dt.3rd June, 2006 in L.G.O.P.No.1100 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District cum Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act as confirmed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, under L.G.A.No.21 of 2006 dt.3rd January, 2008 as illegal and untenable and unsustainable and consequently liable to the set aside and hold the Respondents as land grabbers by allowing the application of the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25833 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner questions the order of the Principal District Judge- cum-Special Tribunal under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, R.R.District in LGOP.1100/2000, dated 03.06.2006, as confirmed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in LGA.21/2006 dated 03.01.2008. The petitioner filed LGOP.1100/2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Special Tribunal under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the petition schedule property and the respondents therein have grabbed the said property. The learned District Judge held that in fact, the petitioner failed to establish that she is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property and respondents are the land grabbers of the petition schedule property. It is further observed that there was no lay out approved by any local authorities or HUDA and therefore, the question of purchasing plots by the petitioner under Exs.A1 to A3 does not arise and the said documents are not true or valid. Admittedly, petitioner failed to file any approved lay out of any authority to show that the land was divided into plots and lay out was approved for which she has purchased the said property under Exs.A1 to A3. There is no material to show that the respondents have grabbed the land and were in possession of the land. There is no material to show that they indulged in any execution of documents after the alleged sales by their attorney holders in favour of the petitioner under Exs.A1 to A3. Respondents 1 to 8 have dealt with the property as occupants and applied for occupancy rights certificate and got it by 21.06.1984 i.e. even before the sale deeds obtained by the petitioner. It is stated that the certificates were granted based on the sada sale deeds dated 09.05.1984. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed an application in I.A.538/2007 under Or.41 Rule-27 CPC seeking to grant leave to file additional documents and receive the same by condoning delay. It is stated that similar application was also filed in I.A.960/2007 by one of the respondents i.e. R8 for receiving additional documents under Or.41 Rule-27 CPC and the said application was dismissed on the ground that no reasons have been shown as to why the said documents could not be filed before the Court below and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner therein to file the said documents before the appellate Court. Following the order passed in I.A.960/2007, the application filed by the petitioner in IA.538/2007 for receipt of the additional documents was dismissed. Admittedly, the documents which are sought to be filed are not the fresh documents and it is not the case of the petitioner that the said documents have been filed before the Court below and the Court below declined to receive the same. Under Order 41 Rule-27 CPC, it is not open for the petitioner herein to produce additional evidence before the appellate Court if she has not filed the same before the trial Court. If such documents have been filed before the original Court and the original Court refuses to receive the same, it is open for the petitioner to produce the same before the appellate Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that in spite of due diligence, she could not file the same before the Court below. Therefore, as the legal requirements under Or.41 Rule-27 CPC have not been complied with, we are of the opinion that the said application has rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. We are also of the opinion that the lower appellate Court rightly confirmed the order of the trial Court. We do not see any grounds to entertain the present writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ______________________ K.C.BHANU,J Dated: 26.11.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies