The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure can apply to proceedings under special enactments unless explicitly stated otherwise, reinforcing the need for adherence to natural justice principles.

ORDER :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

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 Court’).

2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, 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 respondents and perused the record.

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

4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that, the Special Court had erred in allowing the underlying interlocutory application filed by the respondents herein under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to add new reliefs to the prayer portion of the main LGOP.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Special Court had erroneously entertained the underlying interlocutory application, as if it was filed in the normal civil suit, without taking into account of the fact that the O.P. has been filed under a special enactment, i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’); that Section 7(5D)(i) of the Act specifically mentions that the provisions of CPC do not apply to this Special enactment; that the Special Court is required to 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 the Act and the Rules made thereunder; and that the Rules framed under the Act being ‘the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short, ‘the Rules’), in particular Rule 13 thereof, having specified the applicability of provisions of CPC only to matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of the said Rule, the underlying interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC ought not to have been entertained and allowed by the Special Court.

6. It is also the case of the petitioners that having regard to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which has overriding power over other laws, the Special Court had erred in considering the underlying interlocutory application, more so, in respect of the reliefs sought therein being beyond the scope of the O.P. filed in the special enactment; that Section 7 of the Act deals with for providing speedy enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing; and that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked in a routine manner or any application filed under the said provision can be considered automatically, unless the Court finds it necessary to adjudicate the main issue.

7. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that the Special Court while allowing 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 is 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 Tribunal, 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 is a re