IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 27564 OF 2010 Between: Bhadraiah Goud and others ..... Petitioners AND Mrs. G.Anupama Ram and others .....Respondents The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU) This writ petition is sought to be filed questioning order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, in L.G.C. 81 of 2003 by which the Special Court accepted request of the applicant/first respondent herein to send disputed documents Exs. B-2 and B-16 to Handwriting Expert in Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison with disputed signatures of late B.C.Mark who is original owner, with her signatures contained in Exs. A-40 to A-43. Ex.A-40 is registered sale deed No.2186 of 1977 dated 14.9.1977 executed by B.C. Mark. Ex.A-42 is letter dated 8.3.1968 addressed by B.C. Mark to the Accountant General, Hyderabad. Ex.A-41 is letter dated 11.5.1973 addressed by B.C. Mark and another to the Deputy Chief Accountant (Revenue), A.P. State Electricity Board, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Ex.A-43 is the original application for admission of one Birdula Uma Shanti into Andhra Sarawathi Balika Patashala, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. It is stated that B.C. Mark, admitted the said Uma Shanti into school. Ex.A-41 to A- 43 are all documents which were obtained from respective authorities. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that order passed by the Special Court is contrary to order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P. No.3756 of 202009. It is contended that in the previous order, this court set aside similar order passed by the Special Court on the ground that Exs. A-40 to A-43 were not previously admitted. Now subsequent to the said order, PW-1 recalled herself as witness and marked these documents as Exs. A-40 to A-43 and she was subjected to cross examination by the adversary thereafter. Therefore, the Special Court intended to send those documents for comparison with the disputed signatures contained in Ex.B-2 and B-16 on the ground that they were admitted in evidence and it complies with previous order passed by this court. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that though they were admitted in evidence, they were not admitted by the petitioner and they were not confronted to them. B.C. Mark is no more. She never disputed Exs. A-40 to A-43 documents or signatures contained therein during her lifetime. In our considered opinion, Ex.A-41 to A-43 are documents, which are sufficiently ancient in nature and they were obtained from public offices and whose authenticity can not be disputed at this point of time. Thus they remain to be undisputable documents, which are containing signatures of Mrs. B.C.Mark. Exs.A-40 to A-43 relate to the period when no disputes cropped up between the parties. Therefore, they are fit for comparison with disputed documents Exs. B-2 and B- 16. In any event, opinion of Expert on comparison of disputed signatures in Exs. B-2 and B-16 with undisputable signatures contained in Exs. A-40 to A-43, is only a piece of evidence, which has to be taken into consideration by the Special Court along with other evidence let in by both the parties during enquiry before the Special Court. It is not going to be the conclusive proof. The report has to be weighed along with other material on record. Therefore, it is open to the Special Court to weigh the report to be obtained in this matter along with other evidence on record and to arrive at just and proper conclusion, having regard to all the material let in by both the parties. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the lower court. Hence the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to file and raise objections to the report to be furnished by the Handwriting Expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ___________________________ Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu November 8, 2010 MAS