IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22993 of 2006 Between: M/s.Bahubali Oil and Chemicals, A Registered Partnership Firm rep.by its Managing partner Sri.J.Shankar Lal Agarwal, S/o.J.P.Agarwal, aged about 63 years, office at Taramandal complex, 5-9-13, Saifabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special court-II,(Under AP Land Grabbing Prohibition act, 1982), BRK Buildings, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, rep.by its Registrar 2 B.Nageswara Rao S/o.B.Eswaraiah R/o.H.No.1-9, Gachibowli, Sherlingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District 3 K.Ramakrishna, S/o.Late K.Venkateswarlu H.No.11-6-872, Baig Island, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad 4 Smt.A.Vijaya Laxmi W/o.A.Pandu Ranga Rao H.No.15-169/1, Srinagar colony, Old Gajuwaka Vizag-6 5 Chitra Narasimha S/o.Venkatesh Gopalapuram village, Maharanipet Gram panchayat Sivarampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6 T.Ranjeet Singh S/o.T.Shankar Singh H.No.18-8-444/111,Uppuguda, 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Certiorari calling for the records in and relating to the order dated 19.10.2006 in LGC No.34/2002 on the file of the Special Court under the provisions of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition ) Act,Hyderabad and quash the said order and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY FOR R3 TO R 6 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASHAYANA REDDY W.P.No.22993 of 2006 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the order dated 19-10-2006 in LGC No.34 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition ) Act, 1982, for short, ‘the Act’ and to quash the same. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-firm filed LGC No.34 of 2002 before the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Act, ( hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court” ), seeking eviction of the respondents and also for punishing them under the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioner filed IA No.488 of 2003 for appointment of a Commissioner in the rank of Assistant Director, Survey and Settlements, Ranga Reddy District for localization of the said land in order to effectively adjudicate the matter. The said application was allowed on 1-4-2003 and the Commissioner after inspecting the land submitted his report along with a plan to which the respondents have also stated to have filed their objections. The Commissioner was also examined as a court witness and that the matter was heard and it was reserved for orders. While the matters stood thus, the Special Court suo moto re-opened the case and by the impugned order dated 19-10- 2006 appointed the same Commissioner with further direction to note down whether the compound wall serving the disputed land was removed by the trespassers or not and also to report as to the total extent of the land that was taken for road widening and to note down other physical feathers. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that inasmuch as the earlier Commissioner has filed his report and objections were also filed by the respondents, without there being any application nor affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the Special Court ought not to have re-opened the matter suo motu and the same is not proper. Learned counsel further submitted that the Special Court has no power to appoint second Commissioner without setting aside the report of the first Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relying on Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC contended that earlier report filed by the Commissioner was found to be defective and the Special Court considered it desirable to appoint the Commissioner to ascertain certain subsequent facts and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the Special Court. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that after the report of the Commissioner is filed, pursuant to the orders in I.A.No.488 of 2003, the Special Court ought to have considered the objections that were filed by the parties, and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, ought to have passed appropriate orders as to whether the report has to be accepted or not, instead of appointing the Commissioner suo moto. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside directing the Special Court to reconsider the matter afresh, including the consideration of the objections filed by the parties to the report filed by the Commissioner appointed earlier and after hearing both the parties, shall pass appropriate orders as per law. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Kk ________ 7-3-2008