IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18135 of 2008 Between: S. Premesha S/o. Late Narsaiah R/o.7-12, Raju Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by the Collector, Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The President, Padmashali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.74, Padmashali Colony, Bolakpur, Hyderabad. 4 The Co-Operative Sub- Registrar Office of the Divisional Co-Op. Office, Near Exhibition Grounds, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 5 The Addl. Commissioner, Urban Community Development, M.C.H., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 6 The Commissioner, M.C.H., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records from the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad in I.A.No.276 of 2008 in LGC No.21 of 2000 and quash the order dated 01.07.2008 passed by the Trial Court Judge and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.18135 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 01-07-2008 in I.A.No.276 of 2008 in LGC No.21 of 2000 on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Special Court’) whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of petition to incorporate Survey Nos.230 and 234, was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner filed the LGC in the year 2000 against the action of the respondents in grabbing the plot of the petitioner bearing No.127 admeasuring 200 square yards, which was purchased from the Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society Limited through registered sale deed vide document No.11630 of 1979 situated at Padmashali Colony, Bolakpur, Hyderabad. 3. The LGC was posted for arguments on 31.10.2006 after completion of evidence on both sides. Thereafter, the present I.A.was filed in 2008 seeking amendment of Clause 10 and 19 of Form No.1 and also in the prayer portion of LGC by adding Survey Nos.230 and 234-part in place of Survey Nos.40,41 and 42. 4. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the original layout filed by the M.C.H. discloses that Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society Venture-II obtained sanctioned layout of Survey Nos.40,41 and 42 of Bolakpur and Survey Nos.230 and 234 part of Bakaram and that the Survey Nos.230 and 234 are not mentioned in the sale deed as well as in the LGC petition. 5. The case of the respondents 5 and 6 before the Special Court was that petitioner filed a LGC petition and trying to drag on the proceedings in order to have unlawful gain from them and the issue raised in the I.A. that there is no mention of Survey Nos.230 and 234 was already clarified in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner. 6. The Special Court while dismissing the I.A. observed that if the I.A. was allowed, it will change the character of the LGC itself which is not permissible under law and the entire case is contested on the basis of Survey Nos.40,41 and 42 and LGC was taken cognizance having regard to the fact that Survey numbers mentioned in the LGC as 40,41 and 42 of Bholakpur village, Padmashali Colony, and also having regard to the location, extent and value of the land. The Special Court further observed that LGC was filed 8 years back and when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner has come up with the present petition to drag on the proceedings. The Special Court is supposed to dispose of the LGC within six months by following summary procedure. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original layout filed by the M.C.H. discloses that Padmashali House Building Society, Venture-II obtained sanctioned layout of Survey Nos.40,41 and 42 of Bolakpur and Survey Nos.230 and 234 part, Bakaram and also as per the sketch of the Surveyor , the said plot is forming part of Survey Nos.230 and 234 and therefore, Special Court ought to have allowed the I.A. by incorporating Survey Nos.230 and 234 in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence, he prayed to allow the writ petition. 8. It is seen from the record, I.A. was filed seeking amendment 8 years after institution of L.G.C. when the matter was posted for arguments. It is to be noted that in the sale deed, it was mentioned that plot is situated in Survey Nos.40,41 and 42. If petitioner wants to add Survey Nos.230 and 234 in the LGC petition, he should have first altered the survey numbers in the sale deed. Now third parties-allottees are in possession of property by virtue of allotment made by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad-5th respondent and those allottees are not impleaded in the LGC petition. 9. In the instant case, the evidence on both sides have been adduced and closed and the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the present I.A. is filed seeking amendment to incorporate different survey numbers, which cannot be permitted at this length of time. In fact, Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. prohibits amendment after commencement of trial. But however, the amendment can be allowed if the party concerned in spite of due diligence could not seek the amendment within reasonable time. In the case on hand, the amendment is sought 8 years after institution of the L.G.C. and that too when the matter is posted for arguments. 10. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 13.10.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}