THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.3492 of 2009 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 09.02.2009, passed in I.A.No.432 of 2008 in L.G.C.No.6 of 2005 by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘ the Act’), Hyderabad (for short ‘the Special Court’), the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner through his GPA Holder filed L.G.C.No.6 of 2005 seeking to declare him as the absolute owner of the schedule property and the respondent as the land grabber and also passed orders for eviction of the respondent from the said property. After the respondent filed counter, the Special Court framed the issues, examined the witness of the petitioner and also examined the respondent as R.W.1, through whom, Exs.B.1 to B18 were marked. In the said L.G.C., a Commissioner was also appointed and he submitted the report. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.223 of 2008 seeking to advance the hearing of LGC to a nearer date. The said I.A. was dismissed as infructuous. He filed I.A.No.224 of 2008 seeking to engage an Advocate, whose vakalat is filed along with the petition. The said I.A. was adjourned to 24.03.2008 for production of the petitioner by his Advocate or to proceed with the cross-examination of RW1. While so, the petitioner filed a memo on 18.02.2008 stating that as the schedule property i.e., plot No.39, is not identified by him, he has no claim whatsoever over the said property and the respondent is not the land grabber and he filed the LGC by mistake and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the LGC as not pressed. On 24.03.2008, neither the petitioner nor his Advocate was present and the respondent and his Advocate were present and stated no objection to dismiss the LGC as not pressed in view of the memo filed by the petitioner and therefore, the LGC was dismissed as not pressed. Alleging that on 24.03.2008, himself and his counsel were late by few minutes in attending to the Court due to traffic jam, the petitioner filed I.A.No.432 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to restore the LGC by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 24.03.2008. Through order dated 09.02.2009, the Special Court dismissed the said I.A. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner has settled the matter by entering into a memorandum of understanding under Ex.B2 dated 13.02.2008, and he agreed to receive a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. On that day, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and subsequently, he received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B1 dated 27.02.2008. It is stated that based on the admission made by the petitioner in his evidence about his signing on the memorandum of understanding and his receiving the said amount, the Special Court dismissed the said I.A. by the order impugned. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to traffic jam, the petitioner and his counsel were absent on 24.03.2008 and that the Special Court instead of passing over the matter ought to have dismissed the LGC as not pressed in their absence. He further contended that the respondent obtained the signature of the petitioner on a blank paper by playing fraud and that the petitioner does not know the contents of the memorandum of understanding nor received the alleged amount. He prays to allow the writ petition by restoring the LGC for deciding the same on merits. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that in the light of the admission made by the petitioner in his cross-examination about his signature on Ex.B2 by receiving the part payment of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.10 lakhs and also about his admission about the receipt of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B1, the Special Court dismissed the LGC on 24.03.2008 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order in rejecting to restore the said LGC. He submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to pay the remaining sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and therefore, a direction may be given to him to deposit the said amount in the Special Court. 7. We have perused the material on record. The recitals of Ex.B2-memorandum of understanding dated 13.02.2008, go to show that there was a settlement between the parties for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs payable by the respondent to the petitioner for withdrawal of L.G.C.No.6 of 2005 by filing a compromise petition before the Special Court. On that day, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also paid by the respondent to the petitioner towards advance in the presence of the witnesses with an agreement to pay the remaining sum of Rs.9,50,000/-before the Advocates after compromise. On 18.02.2008, the petitioner filed a memo stating that he cannot identify the schedule property and he has no claim whatsoever over the property and that the respondent is not the land grabber and he filed the LGC by mistake. Later, on 27.02.2008, the petitioner received the second part payment of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B2. It was also noted therein with regard to the payment of balance sum of Rs.8,50,000/- by the respondent to the petitioner after final settlement in the LGC. Recording the non- absence of the petitioner and his counsel and the no-objection of the learned counsel for the respondent for dismissal of the LGC, in view of the memo, the Special Court dismissed the LGC as not pressed. But, the petitioner stating that their absence was neither willful nor wanton seeks to restore the LGC by filing I.A.No.432 of 2008, in which, he was cross-examined on 16.10.2008 wherein he admitted about his signatures on the memo as well as Exs.B1 and B2. But, his plea is that he signed only on blank papers and denied the contents of Ex.B2. Admittedly, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.432 of 2008, the petitioner has not pleaded as regards signing of blank papers and he pleaded therein that the counsel for the respondent suggested to him that the matter has to be advanced for recording the compromise since it was posted to a longer date and that the said counsel got some papers prepared and obtained his signature. Therefore, it can be inferred that he signed the papers for the purpose of filing the same into the Court and that the plea of signing on the blank papers by him cannot be countenanced, as rightly observed by the Special Court. Further, as the petitioner admitted his signatures on the memo and Exs.B1 and B2, it can be believed that he received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the Special Court has passed a very comprehensive order and we do not find any infirmity in it. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the respondent is permitted to deposit the remaining sum of Rs.8,50,000/- before the Special Court. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:21.04.2011 sj