IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14291 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Sambhavi Properties Ltd. Rep. by its Director, V. Raghu Regd. Office at 90, Ist Avenue, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. T.P. Nalini W/o. T.C. Pandu Rangam, R/o. H.No. 12-13-677/13, Kimpti Colony, Street No.1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. Presently Residing at Aljazira Poultry Farm, Dubai UAE., Rep. by her GPA Holder Smt. T.P. Vijaya .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari, call for the records relating to and in connection with the order dated 1-7-2009 passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad in I.A.No. 158 of 2009 in L.G.C. No. 36 of 2008 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : GM,J & VVA,J WP_14291_2009 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Gulam Mohammad) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in I.A.No.158 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and set aside the order passed therein. The petitioner who is the respondent in L.G.C case filed I.A.No.158 of 2009 under section 151 C.P.C seeking to reopen the evidence of applicant. The Tribunal having observed that the applicant has to incur an expenditure of Rs.25,000/- to come from Dubai to India for one visit, allowed the petition on payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material available on record. The ground urged by the petitioner to reopen the evidence of the applicant as P.w.1 is that at the time of examination of P.w.1 certain questions could not have been put to her due to lack of instructions from him. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the claim of the petitioner is a bonafide one or not, the fact that remains undisputed is that the applicant has to attend the Court after reopening of her evidence all the way from Dubai, for which she has to incur Rs.25,000/- on one visit. In this view of the matter, the approach of the Tribunal in allowing I.A.158 of 2009 on condition of payment of Rs.25,000/- appears to be just and reasonable and therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ Gulam Mohammad, J _______________________ Vilas V.Afzul Purkar, J IVD/ STP