High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 J 4 5 Wo. Late C.Srinivas Rao, Aged about 80 ye4re, No. 19-l-761, Tambhakugunj, Maharajgunj, Outside Smt.Chiluka Laxmi Bar, Occ.Household, R/o. H. Qood Bowli, flyderabad Miss. Chiluka Jaya $ree, D/o. Lale C.Srinivasa Rao, Aged abogt 59 years, Qcc Retd. Govt. Employee. R/o. H No. 19- 1 761, Tambhakugunj, lv.lahafaj9unj, Outside Dood Bowli, Hydqrabad, Smt.Mutyala Swaroop Rani, Wo. La years, Occ.Household. R/ o. H. No.1 Outside Dood Bowli, Hyderabad. Smt.Akula Anuradha, Wo. A.Gyneshwar D/o. Late C.Srinivas Raq, aged about 53 yearg, Oce.Household. Rio. H.No. l9-'l -761 , Tambhakugunj, [vlaharajgunj, Qutside Dood Bowli, Hyderabad. ubhash Qhander, Aged about 56 -761, Tambhakugunj, Maharqjgunj, 9.1

Smt.Pusthey $ujatha, W1o. P.Shravan Kumar, ,D/o. Late C.Srinivas Rao, aged aboutS0 y-ears, Occ, Household. R/o. H.No. l9-1-761, Tambhakugunj, Maharajgunj, Outside Dood Bowli, Hyderabad. 6 Sri.Chiluka Manik Rao, S/o. Late C.Srinivas Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Privalgservice, R/q. H..No.'19-1-761, Tambhakugunj, Mqharajgunj, Qutside Dood Bowli, Hyderabad.

7. Chiluka [Jrra [t4aheshwari,, D/o. Late C.Srinivas Rao, Agerl al:out 45 years, Occ.Househr lj. R/ o. H .No. 19- 1-761, Tambhakugunj, [rl : hr,rrajg unj, Outside Dood Bou,li ll yderabad. B. Chiluka Raja Siree, D/o. Late C.Srinivas Rao,,Aged aboLrt 91,ears, Occ. Househ< lrj. R/o. H. No, 1 9-1 -76 1, Tambhakugunj, I\/a h rre jgun1, Outside Dood Bowli. rlyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS -226 Petition undt:r Article of the Constitutipn of lndia craying th4t in the circumstances stat ld in the affidavit filed therewith,- the H gh Court may be pleased to issue a ',vrit of certiorari or any other appropriqte writ or directign calling for the records relating tp the order of the lll Addl District Juig,.>, Rangp Reddy District at L.B.Natrar passed in lA.No.41l2018 in LGOP t' o. 27712016 daled 21 .08.2018 ano,luash the same lA NO: { OF 2018 Petition und€jr Section 1 51 CPQ praying that in the circu rrs tances stated ln tho affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dtay all further proceedi ttls in LGQP.No.77712016 on the file of tlre lll Addl. Distriat Judge, Rangq Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pPnding disposal of the WP IANO:1O 019 FetitiQn unde' Section 1$1 CPq praying that in the circu nstances $tated in the affidavit filec ir support of the petition, the High Coun nral be pleased to dismiss the gpplicat c,n in Writ'fetilion No. 39Q00 of 2018 in lirn ne with eXemplary qosts while vacatinp the interim orders of stay passed in LA Nr, . of 2018 in WP No. 39600 sf 2018 ( l 02-11-2018 in the interest of justice NO: I OF 2023 Petitign r,nde Section 1F1 CPq praying that in the circurnstances platrpd in pleased to the affidavit filed ir support Of the petition, the High Court n,ay extendiheordersPi..ssedinlA.No.1/20,1BinWP.No'39600/2018 'be Counsel for the Pet tioners: SRI O. MANOHAR REDDY REPRESE:NT|NG FOR SRI. S V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A SURYANARAYANA The Court nlade the following: ORDER () THE HON'BtE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BtE SMT. JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.39600 of 2018 ORDER'. (per nonble Sri lustice T.Vinod Kumar) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dt.21.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.41 of 2018 in L.G.O.P.No.777 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'the Special Coutt').

2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Rcddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online representing Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners. and Sri A.Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf !-espondents and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the L.G.O.P. as well as ln the underlying interlocutory application.

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that, the Special Court had erred in allowing the underlying intei'locutory application filed by the respondents herein under Order Vl Rule 17 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') to add new reliefs to the prayer potion of the main LGOP. 2

5. It i,; tlrc further case of the petitioners that the Spe:ia1 Court had erroneouslr e rlertained the underlying interlocutory apDlicat cir, as if it was filed in t.he nr rmal civll suit, without taking into account of th r firct that the O.P. has beer filed under a special enactment, i.e., the Andhra prtdesh Land Grabbinq (l,ro rlbition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act'); that Sect on 7(5DXi) of the Act sp{rcif crlly mentions that the provisions of CPC do no- a lply to this Special enactrnent; that the Special Couft is required to f rllcw its own procedure vh :lr shall not be inconsistent with the principles of na ural justice and fair ciav :rd subject to the other provisions of the Act rn( the Rules made thereun,Jt:r; and that the Rules framed under the Act b,:irrg the Andhra Pradesh l-anC (irabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 19BB (for shor:,'_he Rules'), in particular Fi.ule l3 thereof, having specified the applicability o, p ovisions of CPC only tl n atters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of th: sai I Rule, the underlyinq int ,rlocutory application filed under Order VI Rul,: 17 CpC ought not to hav€ be:r entertained and allowed by the Special Couri. 6, It i,; a so the case of the petitioners that havrnq rcg trd to the provisiors, )f ,(ction 15 of the Act, which has overriding po\,ilr over other laws, the Scerirrl Court had erred in considering the underlyinr; irterlocutory application,nr,16so,inrespectofthereliefssoughtthereinb,:irrg;eyondthe scope of tl-e r) P. filed in the special enactment; that Sectior 7 of the Act deals wltl^ tor :roviding speedy enquiry into any alleged act o. itn<i grabbing; and that tl e )rovisions of Order VI Rule 17 CpC cannot b,e in,,oked in a routine nann(r or any application filed under the sard pro,,si rn can be a 3 considered automatically, unless the Court finds it necessary to adjudicate the matn tssue

7. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that the Special Court while altowing the underlying interlocutory application -filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, has failed to consider as to how the relief sought for in the underlying application ls necessary to adjudicate the main issue of alleged land grabbing by the petitioners herein, in as much as the order does not record any reasons for allowing the said application and is thus, an unreasoned order.

8. It is the further case of the petitioners that the L.G.O.P. has been filed by the respondents herein before the Special Court in the year 2013 and on abolition of the Special Trrbunal, and being transferred to the Special Court, the respondents cannot take advantage of the same by filing application of the present nature under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, after a lapse of four years, as if it ls a regular civil proceeding seeking amendment of the prayer and also the Special Court allowing the same in a mechanical manner.

9. In suppoft of the aforementioned contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the ersMhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Zre Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v/s. Smt,B.Lalita Devi and otherl . ' rggs(z) nrr g+ (0.e.) 4

10. Per co ttra/ on behalf of the respondents, it is contended trat there is no absolLrt:r b,rr on appllcation of provisions of CPC to the prrree,lings under the Special er r:tment; that in a given circumstance, disr:retion s ;ested with the Court tl e rl.ertain petitions filed under the provisions of CP - a 1d as such, the presen: pr t tion filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rlqh: y entertained by the Specia Court; and that there is no abuse of process of law by the Special Corrrt : ther in entertaining the petition under Order VI Fule 17 CPC or allowing th r said application; and that the petitioners her€rir d( spite being granted :;Lffi(€nt time, did not file their counter, and have ihLS, forfeited their rrght l.o e counter, have filed the present Writ Petit o r c aiminq the order of tire ipecial Cout being contrary to the provisions if'tre Act and thus, suffers f cm impropriety, and as such, deserves to be dlsnisr,ed.

11. In :,up rort of their contentions, the respondents havc ;r ar ed reliance on the decisir ns of the hvo Division Benches of the erstwhi e 'li lh Court of Andhra Pr;rde I in the cases of Duvvu Tata Rao and other!; v,/s, Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Probation) Acl Hyderitbad; and New -la.it L,,tbour Society, Vijayawada v/s. Haji Abo'ul Rahaman Saheb and ttherl; and thc order rn Vojjala )ayamma v,'s. Vojjala Putlaiaha.

77. !Ve ha',r: taken note of the respective contentions urqec ' rsss (z) i) Fc; {re) ' rssz 1t1 n,Lr t r I 'oe1 ' cRp t'to.q;go/: c6 dt.o2.08.2oo7 ! I l I I t a,: ) 5

13. Without delving into the merits of the LGOP, the scope of the present Writ Petition is limited only to see whether the Special Court [to which a case which was originally instituted before the Tribunal and on its abolition stood transferredl can entertain application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC or the Special Court is required to consider the matters which stood transferred to them strictly by applying the provisrons of the Act under which the proceedings have been initiated.

14. In order to consider as to whether the order of the Special Court suffers from any impropriety in entertaining and allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, in a case of the present nature filed under the special enactment, it is necessary to refer to the relevant Sections ofthe Act: "Section 7(5o)(i):- Notwithstanding anlthing in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V oI 1908) the Special Court may follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder while deciding the Civil liability. Section 9. Special Court to have the powers of the Civil Court and the Court of Session:- Save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the proceedings before the Special Coud and for the purposes of the provisions of the said enactments, Special Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, or as the case may be, a Court of session and shall have all the powers of a Civil Court and a Court of session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor. 6 { Section :: 5. Act to override other law:- The provisions of tf i: /,ct shall have effe rt noh,^iithstanding anything inconsistent therewith c )'.tt, ined in any ot]er aw for the time being in force or custom, usage or lcr.ee rent or decreer oT I der of a Court or any other tribunal or authority. Section .lr-8. Guidelines for interpretation of Act:- lf,.) StheCule sha I cDns itute the guidelines for the interpretation and impl€n.:r.tltUon of this i\(:. '

15. Furth(r, in exercise of powers conferred under Sectior 1( of the Act, Rules lra,.,e L een framed, viz., The Andhra pradesh lan 1 Grabbing (Prohibitiorr) tLrles, 1988, and Rule 13 thereof reads as under: ''13. lrpplication of the Code of Civil procedure, 1909:. The Spec a Cc, i 1 shall have the same powers as are vested n th€ ( ir'il Court under the (lode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when rvi rg an app icetior i-t respect of the followrng matters namely: (a) enfo:c ng Lhe attendance of any person and examining hinr ( n c ath; (b) comoe ling the production f documents and material oblects; (c) issLrinr (-ommission for examination oF witnesses; (d) evr,ry rrquiry or investigation by the Court shall be deenre,l ic be a judicial p( c:eding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 -.f I ldian Pena ( od, , 1860 (45 of 1860)."

16. Firstly, tr reading of Section 7(5D)(i)n of the Act wou d sh rw that the said provson c,f the Act begins with a non-absent3e :lause i.e. 'notwithstand,'1,i anythlng in the CPC" by itself does not m:an or bar application cl 3PC in its entirety to the proceedings under tl-e Sp:cial Act. It is only rarl-en a specific provision exists under the special e..,a( tment, the application of ll)C would stand excluded. Even in such cases, w.1ere a specific 7 provision exists under the Act with regard to the procedure evolved by the Special Court, the requirement is that the same should not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the provision of CPC would stand.. excluded is wholly misplaced. On the other hand, only where there is inconsistency betlveen the provisions under the Act and the CPC, the provision under the Special Act would prevail and not otherwise.

17. Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the application of CPC is limited to only matters enumerated under Rule 13 (a) to (d) of the Rules, a conjoint reading of Section 7(5D)(i) with Section 9 of the Act, on the other hand, firstly, would show that the application of provisions of CPC is not excluded and secondly, the Special Court is conferred with the power of a Civil Court and Coutt of Session, while dealing with matters under Special enactment. The reference to matters enumerated in Rule 13 (a) to (d) cannot be construed in a restrictive manner so as to limit the applicability of CPC to only those sub-clauses mentioned in Rule 13 of the Rules.

18. A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Duwu Tata Rao (2 supra) had held that the provisions of CPC are very much applicable to the proceedings under the Act, insofar as they do not have any inconsistency with the provisions of the Act. This Court in the aforementioned decision had held as under: "A plain reading of Section 9 leaves no doubt about the power of the Special Court to follow the provisions of the CPC, provided they are not j l l, 8 inc(lnsisl lrt with any of the provisions oF the Act, Of colrse sub- sectirn 5-D) of Section 7 of the act empowers the Special Cc:rt to follovr 1; own procedure which shall not be inconsisteri \vit1 the prrncple cf natural justice, notwithstanding anything contein:d n the Civl Pr.:cdure Code. But, this provision shall be read al)nc with Sectilr . A combined reading of the provisions of Section ,, (S t ) and Seetilt nlakes it clear that even though the provisions or ;ec ion 7 exclu.es the applicability of CpC to the proceedings under :hr: Act, Sectiiln ( s an exception to the said provision. Thus, it cannct bt said trovisions of the CpC are wholly not applica)lc t ) the tha: th€ pro:€redi,,cs initiated under the Act. llaving gone through thc (,ntt e Act and t,re rllrles, we find no provrsion which is similar to lhe pro,si(,ns of OrCe X) t:ule 2 CPC, following which the ludgment \ /as prcrtr un,red in the L G.( , and therefore it cannot be said that the provisions of )rder XX a.Lrle :PC are inconsistent with any of the provisions of t,te ,\ct or the R.rle,. The Special Court, therefore, did no mistake in p"orourcing the JLrdg r,tnt by following the provisions of the CpC.,,

19. Having regard to the aforesaid decision of this Couft irnC i tasmuch as it is not s;t'cw r to this Court that either under the Act or in tle llules exists under the Act \,/hich is inconsistent with Order VI Rule 17 C.p,_, hereby the Special Cor r-r equired to consider the said provision anc not alpl cation flled under Orrl.r t I Ru{e 17 CPC, this Court is of the view that the contention advanced rn behalf of the petitioners with regard to thr: Sp _,cial Court considerlng tl- I application filed under Order VI Rule 17 Cp(. e ther being contrary 1.o th : Act or the order suffering from any improprie ty, cannot be held to be r. al r .

20. Further :hough on behalf of the petitioners, it is conlerd( d that the order of th: S:Decial Court is an unreasoned order ancl also thrt the said i; 9 application has been filed by the respondents herein after a lapse of four years from the date of initiation of proceeding initially in the year 2013 and beyond the jurisdiction of the Special Court, it is to be noted that the petitioners herein despite being granted oppoftunity to file their counter to the said interlocutory application had failed to file the same, thereby, had forfeited the right to raise their objections to the said application at the first instance t

21. The petltioners having failed to raise thelr objections by filing counter at the first instance, cannot be allowed to agitate the same before this Court rn a Writ Petition, at a later polnt of time.

22. Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners having flled their counter to the underlying interlocutory application on 08.08.2018, however, lt is to be noted that the same has not been taken on record by the date of passing of the order, nor the petitioners had taken any steps by filing an application seeking extension of time for filing counter or to accept the counter filed in the underlying interlocutory application by the date of passing of the impugned order.

23. In the absence of the petitloners taking any such steps, as noted hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are precluded from contending that the Special Court having exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the underlying interlocutory application or to contend that the order of the 10 t. 1 Special Coun s uffer from any infirmlty for being interfe.ed rvirh try this Court in this \\/rt P ttion

24. Th -,s, tre Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and il s accordinqly, dismissel

25. Pendrr g miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand c o;ec in the light of this frnal or l:r. No order as to costs. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-P. qH \D NACiABHUSHAMBA EPLTJY REqtsTtlAR_ \.J !;E,I]TION OFFICER I One CC h S F:l S V RAMANA Advocate [OPUC\ ! v Qne QC b Sli . A SURYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] lwo CD Cop :s \ To 1 2 3 KKS BS M. HIGH COUR'T DATED:2810!i12025 \.A( ]ATION COURT ei :;ra 15 ,:;'rt ) :j irs,Jtlil M ..),\r ( 2 at. ORDER WP.No.39600t of 2018 DISMISSING IHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS /-\, /( i ,4W'/r',/ /'' 2 1,'