THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.27819 and 27875 of 2009 22.12.2009 Between: Mr.Dinesh S.Bheda, S/o.Late Shamji Bheda And another … Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by First Special Court, constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.27819 and 27875 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These two writ petitions are against the common order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act, for brevity), in I.A.Nos.1198 and 1199 of 2009. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.27819 of 2009 is filed against I.A.No.1198 of 2009 and W.P.No.27875 of 2009 is filed against I.A.No.1199 of 2009, dated 03.12.2009. The petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main LGC, arrayed only the Special Court as the respondent before us. Five appellants and as many as 68 respondents in LGC are not made parties to these writ petitions. Be that as it is, for the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the main LGC No.42 of 2000, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petitions. Fatima Begum and four others filed land grabbing case seeking declaration that petitioners herein and 70 others are land grabbers, demolition of structures raised by them and delivery of vacant possession. The said case was filed in respect of land admeasuring 3500 Sq.yards comprised in T.S.No.29, Ward No.196, Block E, situated at Gunfoundry, Tataguda village of Nampally Mandal in Hyderabad District. First respondent filed counter. He alleged that appellants entered into agreement of sale with him agreeing to sell petition schedule land on 27.1.1982, that they also executed partnership deed dated 11.3.1982 constituting the firm Anand Towers for the purpose of construction of residential buildings and commercial complexes duly agreeing to contribute the property as their share capital, that he is Managing Partner of the firm and that he executed an agreement of sale on 11.5.1989 in favour of M/s.Varun Constructions Pvt. Ltd., for 2000 Sq.yards. He also alleged that he executed another agreement in favour of M/s.Sindhi Guru Sangath Sabha in respect of 1600 Sq.yards and, therefore, the allegation that the respondents grabbed 3500 Sq.yards is not true. Fourth respondent also filed a counter on similar lines. Respondents 2 and 3 (petitioners herein) filed a memo on 24.4.2001 adopting the counters filed by respondents 1 and 4. Be that as it is, Special Court conducted trial and the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, one S.K.Vyas filed I.A.No1198 of 2009 under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, praying the Special Court to allow him to appear on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, depose on their behalf and take all necessary steps. He alleged that respondents 2 and 3 executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) in his favour. S.K.Vyas also filed I.A.No.1199 of 2009 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 9 of the Act, to permit respondents 2 and 3 to file additional counter and further allow them to withdraw the memo filed earlier adopting the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 4. As noticed supra, these two applications have been dismissed by the Special Court. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the counsel engaged by first petitioner as well as second petitioner are not prosecuting the case properly, that they returned the case bundle and refused to give ‘no objection’ on the vakalat. Therefore, he contends that if the petitioners are not given an opportunity to be represented by GPA, they would not be able to prove their case. We have perused the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.1198 of 2009. There is no such allegation that advocates refused to appear for them. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1199 of 2009, it is alleged that though the petitioners herein approached their advocates number of times to know about the case, they were not given proper information and behaved in an adamant manner. If any weight is to be attached to these allegations, nothing prevented petitioners herein to take necessary steps to discharge their counsel and engage another counsel. Be it noted that under Order III Rule 4(2) of CPC, when once a party to proceedings appoints an advocate as duly instructed attorney, such appointment shall be in force until determined with the leave of the Court. Therefore, if the counsel engaged by them are not attending to the case with all professional diligence the remedy of the petitioners was to file an application before the Court to discharge the lawyer and engage another counsel. Curiously, their GPA comes forward seeking permission. Since the details of how long their advocates did not appear their case or when petitioners executed GPA are absent in the affidavits filed by them. It is now well settled that a GPA may at best represent the case of principal but he cannot give evidence on behalf of principal except deposing the facts which are in his personal knowledge. Insofar as filing of additional counter is concerned, way back in April 2001, petitioners filed memo adopting the counters of respondents 1 and 4 and, therefore, when the matter is ripe for arguments, such applications cannot be accepted. Learned Special Court has thoroughly considered all aspects of the matter and rightly dismissed applications filed by petitioners. These writ petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) ______________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) December 22, 2009 YS