THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.28492 of 2009 Dated:25.01.2010 Between: Vikaruddin Ali Khan @ Rasheed Nawab. …Petitioner and The Spl.Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (P) Act, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.28492 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act, for brevity), dated 28.08.2009 in I.A.No.251 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.9 of 2009. By the said impugned order, the Special Court dismissed the prayer of respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein to injunct respondent Nos.10 to 17 and the petitioner herein restraining them from raising any construction or structures on the land admeasuring 5203 square yards (petition schedule land) in Survey No.58 of Daira Village, while observing that any construction made by the respondents therein will be subject to result of L.G.C. The petitioner contends that the Hon’ble Chairman and Judicial Member passed the impugned order, and therefore, it is unsustainable as per Section 7(4) of the Act. The petitioner relies on State of Andhra Pradesh v K.Mohanlal[1]. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. Mir Ibrahim Ali Khan was the absolute owner of Acs.129.00 in Survey No.58 of the Daira Village called Narayanguda Maktha. After his death, his mother was granted succession. Mir Ibrahim Ali Khan (Makthedar) filed O.S.No.9/1 of 1356 Fasli for declaration of rights of ownership and possession, which was decreed by the High Court of Hyderabad on 17.07.1952. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein are legal heirs of Makthedar, who executed the General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the petitioner on 26.10.1984, which was cancelled. The petitioner then filed O.S.No.211 of 1993, which was decreed and confirmed by the appellate Court. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.2 to 9 filed L.G.C.No.9 of 2009 in collusion with respondent Nos.10 to 17 who were in occupation and raising multistoried complex. Therefore, if order of injunction is not passed, the rights of the petitioner would be affected. Respondent Nos.16 and 17 alleged that they are agreement holders executed by respondent No.11 for development, and that the L.G.C instituted is frivolous. On considering the rival claims the learned Special Court came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for grant of injunction in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 9 and accordingly dismissed the application while observing that construction made by respondent Nos.10 to 13 or 16 and 17 will be subject to result of L.G.C. The question is whether the Special Court consisting of two Judicial Members, namely, the Hon’ble Chairman and Hon’ble Judicial Member suffers from any error of jurisdiction. In K.Mohanlal (supra) this Court treated a letter addressed to it as a writ petition in which the question involved was the validity of appointment of Judicial and Revenue Members. This Court laid down certain guidelines, inter alia, to the effect that the State must consult the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court while appointing Judicial Members and Revenue Members of the Special Court. The Supreme Court, however, did not accept the same and held that the High Court was not right in giving direction for mandatory consultation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the case of appointment of all Members including Revenue Members of the Special Court. The validity or otherwise to an order passed by a Bench consisting of Judicial Members was not at all subject matter of the said decision. Section 7 of the Act deals with constitution of Special Courts and the sitting of Benches. Section 7(4B) and 7(5) of the Act are relevant and read as under. (4B) (a) Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Special Court may be exercised by benches thereof one comprising of the Chairman, a judicial member and a Revenue member and the other comprising of a Judicial Member and a Revenue Member. (b) Where the bench comprises of the Chairman, he shall be the Presiding Officer of such a bench and where the bench consists of two members, the Judicial Member shall be the Presiding Officer. (c) It shall be competent for the Chairman either suo motu or on a reference made to him to withdraw any case pending before the bench comprising of two members and dispose of the same or to transfer any case from one bench to another bench in the interest of justice. (d) Where it is reasonably apprehended that the trial of Civil Liability of a person accused of an offence under this Act, is likely to take considerable time, it shall be competent for the Chairman to entrust the trial of the criminal liability of such offender to another bench in the interest of speedy disposal of the case. (e) Where a case under this Act is heard by a bench consisting of two members and the members thereof are divided in opinion, the case with their opinions shall be laid before another judicial member or the Chairman and that member or Chairman, as the case may be after such hearing as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion and the decision or order shall follow that opinion. (5) The quorum to constitute a meeting of any bench of the Special Court shall be two. Except the prescription under Section 7(5) of the Act that the quorum for constituting a meeting of any Bench shall be two, there is nothing in Section 7(4B) of the Act which supports the petitioner that two Judicial Members should not constitute a Bench and pass an order. Indeed, a perusal of Section 7(4B)(b) of the Act would show that primacy is attached to the Office of the Judicial Members, and therefore, the submission that two Judicial Members cannot constitute a Bench is unsustainable. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Special Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent Nos.2 to 9 are acting in collusion with respondent Nos.10 to 17 to defeat the interest of the petitioner – GPA. If that is so, he may file a review petition before the Special Court, which may be considered on its own merits without any reference to this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 25.01.2010 vs [1] (1998) 5 SCC 468