The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, including Order 1, Rule 10, are applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

D. REDDAPPA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is for quashing the order dated 22nd September, 1992 in i. A. No. 782/1992 in L. G. C. No. 99 / 1989 of the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for Short the Special Court ), I. A. No. 782/1992 was an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. , filed by the petitioners 1 to 23 and respondents 24 to 28 herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners ), claiming to be the purchasers of land from respondents-land grabbers in l. G. C. No. 99 / 1989, to implead themselves as respondents in the said case.

( 2 ) L. G. C. NO, 99 / 1989 relates to the Land bearing R. S. No. 54/2 (Survey No. 27/ 1, 2, 3) measuring 7. 22 acres situated in Pedda Waltair Revenue village, visakhapatnam and the same has been filed by the Commissioner of visakhapamam Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called the respondent ) against 21 persons belonging to duvvu family before the Special Court. The special Court at Hyderabad having taken cognizance of the same as L. G. C. 99/ 89 cause a notice in Form IIA presecribed under Rule 7 (1) of the A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short the Rules ) published in the andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part II, Extraordinary, dated 2nd August, 1989, providing opportunity to any person to file objections on or before 28th of august, 1989 in addition to notices to 21 named interested persons in the land in Form III-A, prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules.

( 3 ) THE 21 respondents in L. G. C. No. 99/89 entered their appearance through a counsel and filed their objections. Thereafter, the case was taken up for trial. Recording of evidence was over. Arguments were also heard and the matter was posted for judgment. At that stage, I. A. No. 782/1992 was filed by the petitioners on 14th September, 1992 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, which reads as follows:-"application is filed on 14-9-1992 for bringing the persons, who purchased the land from the respondents, on record. At this stage, we cannot permit them for impleading and for filing written statements, taking advantage of the fact that the matter is now reopened for limited purpose of hearing the respondents counsel after the Judgment was reserved on 28-7-1992. "as the proposed parties claim through the respondents, their presence is not necessary for adjudicating the questions raised. Application is dismissed. "

( 4 ) ELABORATE arguments have been advanced on either side. Sri C. Poornaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in LA. No. 782/ 1992 are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question from its original owners who are the respondents in L. G. C. No. 99/89 and thus they are successors-in- interest of the persons interested in the land. Therefore, they come within the definition of "land Grabber" as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act. He maintains that they are the persons really interested in the land and as such the Special court should have issued them notices in Form III-A, prescribed under Rule 8. At any rate, he submits, their application for impleading should not have been dismissed. He asserts that the respondent was fully aware that an extent of 10,000 square yeards was purchased by the petitioners and as such it should have impleaded them as respondents in L. G. C. No. 99/89. He also urges that it had come in evidence that the land in question, was sold to the petitioners and therefore, the Special Court ought to have issued notices to them as contemplated under 3rd proviso to sub-section (6) of Sec. 8 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act provides that the Special Court shall be deemed as a Civil Court and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act shall apply to the proceedings before the Special Court, if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It is submitted by him that the reasons given by the Special Court for dismissing the impleading petition are totally unsu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document