VALLURI SITAMAHALAKSHMI Vs. SARCHANDRA ENVIRON PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21. 4. 2008 passed by the Special court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act at Hyderabad, (for short "the Special "court") in LA. No. 121 of 2008 in LGC no. 84 of 2007.

(2.) WRIT petitioners herein filed Land grabbing Case No. 84 of 2007 against the respondents 1 to 3 herein on the file of the special Court under Section 8 (1) of the a. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, inter alia, seeking to declare that the applicants are the owners of the petition schedule land and to evict the respondents from the land in question by declaring them as land grabbers. The Special Court took the cognizance of the case on 30. 10. 2007. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed LA. No. 121 of 2008 seeking to recall the order of taking cognizance of the LGC no. 84 of 2007, contending that the Special court erred in taking cognizance of the case, without calling for the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer as stipulated under Rule 6 of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, (for short " the rules" ). The petitioners herein filed a counter resisting the said LA. The Special court considering the rival contentions of the parties, by its order dated 21. 4. 2008 allowed the LA. No. 121 of 2008 by recalling the order dated 30. 10. 2007 of taking cognizance of the case. Assailing the said order passed by the Special Court, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI A. V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Tribunal having taken the cognizance of the case on 30. 10. 2007, ought not to have recalled its earlier order. Learned Counsel also contends that mere averment made in the concise statement together with documentary evidence is sufficient for taking cognizance of the matter, that though report of the mandal Revenue Officer is called for as required under Rule 6 of the Rules, the report was not made available on the relevant date and that since the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is not mandatory, the order of the Special Court recalling its earlier order is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied upon the judgments reported in shalivahana Builders (P) Ltd. v. S. G. Co-op. Housing Society, 2003 (2) ALD 476 (DB), Chenna Basvanna v. Special Court, 2003 (2) ALD 607 (DB), Konda lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of andhra Pradesh, 2002 (2) ALD 56 (SC), mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan v. Shahsun finance Ltd. , 2005 (2) ALD 675 (FB), vonkela Subrahmanyam v. Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Act, 2007 (5) ALD 184 = 2007 (6) ALT 309 (DB), Ms. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. v. Mandal Revenue Officer and others, 2007 (12) SCALE 40. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid down in those judgments.