RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as, under the andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982, as it stood prior to its amendment, enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing could only be done by the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area concerned, in the absence of a "special Court" constituted for the purpose. In other words, he contends that the District Judge of the concerned area having been constituted as persons designate, the impugned order passed by the Additional district Judge is without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) SRI P. LN. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that, though reference is made to the expression "the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area concerned", the District Judge acts as a court with all the incidents attached to a Court, and that under Section 11 (2} of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, he can make-over the case in question to the Additional District Judge. Reliance is also placed upon some of the observations made in Public Prosecutor vs. L. Ramayya (1974-2, APLJ, 305 - fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document