THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No. 814 of 2011 Dated. 09–02-2011 Between: Y. Bal Raju and others. …Petitioners Vs. The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 09-02-2011 W.P.No. 814 of 2011 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) Heard Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri Ch. Danamjaya, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The petitioners herein are the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in L.G.C.No.06 of 2004 on the file of the learned Special Court under the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent herein is the applicant therein. The 2nd respondent herein was examined-in-chief and cross-examined and his testimony concluded on 22- 08-2007 in the L.G.C. There were a number of interlocutory approaches to this Court by way of writ petitions which are not germane for the purposes of the present writ petition. Suffice it to notice that after the evidence of both parties was closed earlier, P.W.1 was recalled as per the orders dated 11-08-2009 in I.A.No. 581 of 2009 and Exs.A.43 to A.53 were marked on behalf of the applicants in the L.G.C. Pursuant to an order of this Court in W.P.No.25315 of 2007, which was a writ petition, filed seeking permission to cross-examine P.W.1, Exs. B.16 to B.37 were marked on behalf of the writ petitioner herein. Thereafter, after recall of P.W.1, his cross-examination was continuing and in the meanwhile the writ petitioners filed I.A.No. 611 of 2010 in the L.G.C. to the following effect: For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is, therefore, prayed; that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to recall the P.W.1 for cross-examination by these respondents on the subsequent documents filed by both the parties. By the order impugned the learned Special Court rejected this application – I.A.No. 611 of 2010 – by recording that since P.W.1 was recalled for marking Exs.A.43 to A.53, the respondents (writ petitioners) can cross-examine P.W.1 only on those documents. Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petitioners are satisfied if the cross-examination of P.W.1 is permitted not only on Exs.A.43 to A.53, but also on Exs.B.16 to B.37 as these documents were marked subsequent to the closure of the evidence of P.W.1 in the first instance. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya does not seriously contest this proposition. As P.W.1’s cross- examination is continuing the writ petitioners should be permitted sufficient latitude to cross-examine P.W.1 not only in respect of the documents filed on behalf of the respondents in L.G.C. viz., Exs.A.43 to A.53, but also on the documents marked on behalf of the writ petitioners subsequent to earlier closure of evidence of P.W.1 viz., Exs.B.16 to B.37 as well. It is needless to mention that the learned Special Court has ample jurisdiction to rule on the course of cross-examination pursued on behalf of the writ petitioners on all available grounds. We only observe that the right of the writ petitioners to cross-examine P.W.1 cannot be confined only to Exs.A.43 to A.53 but extends to Exs.B.16 to B.37 as well. On the above premise, the order dated 22-12-2010 in I.A.No. 611 of 2010 in L.G.C.No. 6 of 2004 on the file of learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the observations herein. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 09-02-2011 Pvks/*