THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. WRIT PETITION No. 2299 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) This writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. It is directed against the order dt. 2.4.2010 of the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) in I.A.Nos. 7 and 8 of 2010 in LGC.No. 141 of 1989. A tortuous and meandering course of litigation preceded the impugned order. Initially the State filed a complaint which was registered as LGC.No. 141 of 1989 alleging that an extent of 18,493 sq. mtrs. in S.No. 403 belonging to the State Government in T.S.No. 3/1/1 Block ‘S’ was grabbed by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, 58 persons were added as respondents 2 to 59. Thereafter, the respondents 60 to 63 who are sought to be impleaded to the LGC by way of I.A.No. 7 of 2010 were not made parties to the LGC though the land allegedly in their illegal occupation was included in the schedule of property to LGC.No. 141 of 1989. Initially, the Government failed to implead respondents 60 to 63 (who are now sought to be impleaded to the LGC) since R.60, a partnership firm was proceeded against under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act to the extent of 3,658 sq. mtrs (included in the LGC schedule property). Questioning the initiation of the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, the respondents 60 to 63 filed W.P.No. 1693 of 1983 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and the order issued against these respondents under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was invalidated. The State carried the matter by way of Special Leave to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 267 of 1984. The said appeal was dismissed by the order of the Supreme Court dt. 14.2.1996. Thereafter, the 1st respondent in the LGC filed I.A.No. 1014 of 1988 seeking impleadment of the respondents 60 to 63 as party respondents to the LGC. That application was dismissed by the learned Special Court by the order dt. 13.12.2001 and in the said order, the learned Special Court directed the State to take appropriate proceedings to delete an extent of 3,658 sq. mtrs., covered by the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1983 from the LGC schedule property. Pursuant to the direction of the Special Court dt. 19.12.2001 in I.A.No. 1014 of 98, the State Government filed I.A.No. 10 of 2002 seeking leave to amend Form-I and to file revised sketch of the schedule property. The said application was allowed by the Special Court on 2.1.2001 and Form-I was amended and an extent of 3,658 sq. mtrs allegedly in the illegal possession of the respondents 60 to 63 was deleted from the schedule property of the LGC. After conclusion of the trial, LGC.No. 141 of 1989 was dismissed by the Special Court by the Judgment dt. 10.6.2002. Against the said Judgement, the State filed W.P.No. 3646 of 2003 which was dismissed by this Court by the order dt. 15.9.2005. Against the order of this Court, the State preferred Civil Appeal No. 754 of 2006, which was disposed of on 7.1.2008. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court confirming the order of the Special Court in LGC.No. 141 of 1989 and remitted the matter back to the Special Court for disposal afresh on merits. Consequently, LGC.No. 141 of 1989 is being heard afresh by the Special Court and since the trial was already concluded earlier, the matter is coming up for arguments. At the above stage, the State has filed I.A.No. 7 of 2010 seeking impleadment of respondents 60 to 63 as party respondents in the main LGC and I.A.No. 8 of 2010 seeking to amend the LGC schedule property to reincorporate the extent of 3,658 sq. mtrs., of land allegedly in illegal possession of respondents 60 to 63. The learned Special Court dismissed the above two applications on the ground that the same would interminably protract the hearing of LGC.No. 141 of 1989. The Special Court held that even if the Government is still aggrieved by the alleged illegal occupation of public property by the respondents 60 to 63 and still is desirous to proceed against them, it is always open to the State to take appropriate legal steps; that since respondents 60 to 63 were not parties to the LGC since the inception though the land was in their illegal possession and erroneously incorporated in the schedule of LGC and thereafter deleted, no useful purpose will be served by impleading them at this advanced stage of the proceedings in LGC.No. 141 of 1989. This court discerns no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the Special Court warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed by the learned Special Court, if the State Government is aggrieved, it is always open to the State to initiate independent proceedings against the respondents 60 to 63 in respect of their alleged illegal possession of public property, in accordance with law. On the above premise, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MONHAN REDDY, J 07.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY. WRIT PETITION No. 2299 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 07.03.2011.