IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 17892 of 2008 Between: Dogga Haribabu S/o. Sri Mallu Naidu Kapulupadu Post Bheemilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Talluru Venaiah S/o. Late Narsaiah R/o. Lakshminarayanapuram Piduru Post, Manubolu Mandal, Nellore District. 2 C.S. Naidu R/o. Flat No.5, Sai NIlayam besides Forest Office, R.K. Mission Road, Visakhapatnam. 3 Thamarana Ramakoti S/o. Late Sanyasi Naidu R/o. D.No.4012 Bangaru Metta Village, Buchayyapet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records in I.A.No.341/2008 in LGC No.39/2006 dt. 31.07.2008 on the ﬁle of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judicial pronouncement of the Constitutional Courts and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.T.JAGDISH The Court made the following : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.17892 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to set aside the order, dated 31.07.2008, passed in I.A.No.341 of 2008 in L.G.C.No.39 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the application ﬁled by the petitioner herein, under Section 8 (2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to dismiss the said LGC against him, was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that in the entire concise statement ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein- applicant before the Special Court, there are no allegations against the petitioner with regard to the act of land grabbing and as such, he cannot be treated as land grabber; that the statutory report ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned, under Rule 6 (2) of the Act, is an ex parte report, wherein the petitioner has not been given any notice, as such, the Special Court ought not have taken cognizance of the said LGC against the petitioner and ought to have allowed the said application. He further submitted the Special Court passed the impugned order dismissing the said application with exemplary costs, without discussing anything as regards the averments made in the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the said application, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and also delete the exemplary costs imposed on the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents seeks to sustain the impugned order stating that the Special Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, initially, the Special Court took cognizance of the said LGC against respondents 2 and 3 herein. Subsequently, on the basis of the statutory report ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned, wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein is a land grabber, the petitioner was impleaded in the said LGC. In this regard, it is pertinent to note Section 8 (2-A) of the Act, which reads as follows: - “If the Special Court is of the opinion that any case brought before it, is not a ﬁt case to be taken cognizance of, it may return the same for presentation before the Special Tribunal.” The emphasis is on the proviso to the said Section, which reads as under: “Provided that if, in the opinion of the Special Court, any application ﬁled before it is prima facie frivolous or vexatious, it shall reject the same without any further enquiry.” In the instant case, there is no statement in the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the said application, with regard to the return of the case for representing the same before the Special Tribunal, hence, Section 8 (2-A) of the Act has no application. Further, the Special Court having found a prima facie case against respondents 2 and 3 herein as land grabbers and the case not being frivolous and vexatious, initially, took cognizance of the LGC against them and later, on the basis of the statutory report ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a land grabber, impleaded him in the said LGC. The statutory report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is a valuable piece of evidence, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is a land grabber as he encroached 11 cents of land in Sy.No.350/9A and constructed compound wall around the said land and also erected gates at eastern side and raised plantation and flower garden in the said land. Therefore, though there are no allegations against the petitioner in the concise statement ﬁled by the applicant, the Special Court impleaded the petitioner in the said LGC basing on the statutory report ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, which clearly discloses that he is a land grabber. In view of the same, the Special Court rightly took cognizance of the LGC against the petitioner and rightly dismissed the said application ﬁled by the petitioner. The Special Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed, without costs. However, in the circumstances, the exemplary costs of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Special Court is deleted. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _____________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 23rd October 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies