IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17356 of 2009 Between: Mohd.Nizam, S/o.Mohd.Ismail, aged about 42 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.H.No.14-1-129/81, Allapur village, M.R.Balanagar, Kukatpalli, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.Haneefa Bee and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17356 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. The 1st respondent filed LGC.821/2003 on the file of the Special Tribunal under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982-cum- Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) under Sec.7(A)(1) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) stating that she is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 120 sq.yards out of 240 sq.yards on the western side of the Plot No.73 in Plot Nos.73 and 72 in Sy.No.27 situated at Allapur village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.3995/2008 to amend the pleadings in the original petition by deleting plot No.73 in the petition as well as the application wherever it occurs. A counter has been filed by the petitioner herein opposing the said amendment. The 2nd respondent- Tribunal by order dated 30.03.2009 heard both sides and allowed the amendment petition. The said order of the 2nd respondent-Tribunal is questioned before this Court stating that the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Tribunal is without assigning any reasons and therefore it is illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that by the aforesaid amendment, description of the petition schedule does not change, only one survey number would be deleted and western side boundary shown in the amendment petition as plot No. 72 sought to be retained and plot No.73 sought to be deleted. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein submits that for the deletion of Sy.No.73 which is shown as one of the boundaries of the schedule property, the nature of description of the property would be changed and admittedly the 2nd respondent- Tribunal has not assigned any reasons. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to rival contentions, as admittedly the 2nd respondent-Tribunal has not assigned any reasons. On this ground alone we set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter to the 2nd respondent-Tribunal, directing to re-hear and consider the rival contentions of both parties and pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 14.09.2009 Dsr