Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 730 (TS)

Jyothi Porwal v. Chiluka Laxmi Bai

2025-05-28

P.SREE SUDHA, T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
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. 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 regular civil proceeding seeking amendment of the prayer and also the Special Court allowing the same in a mechanical manner. 9. In support of the aforementioned contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v/s. Smt.B.Lalita Devi and others , [ 1995(2) ALT 84 (D.B.)] 10. 9. In support of the aforementioned contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v/s. Smt.B.Lalita Devi and others , [ 1995(2) ALT 84 (D.B.)] 10. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that there is no absolute bar on application of provisions of CPC to the proceedings under the Special enactment; that in a given circumstance, discretion is vested with the Court to entertain petitions filed under the provisions of CPC and as such, the present petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rightly entertained by the Special Court; and that there is no abuse of process of law by the Special Court either in entertaining the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC or allowing the said application; and that the petitioners herein despite being granted sufficient time, did not file their counter, and have thus, forfeited their right to file counter, have filed the present Writ Petition claiming the order of the Special Court being contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus, suffers from impropriety, and as such, deserves to be dismissed. 11. In support of their contentions, the respondents have placed reliance on the decisions of the two Division Benches of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the cases of Duvvu Tata Rao and others v/s. Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Probation) Act, Hyderabad , [ 1999 (2) ALD 92 (DB)] ; and New Jaji Labour Society, Vijayawada v/s. Haji Abdul Rahaman Saheb and others , [ 1992 (1) ALT 112 (DB)] ; and the order in Vojjala Jayamma v/s. Vojjala Pullaiah , CRP No.4790/2006 dt.02.08.2007 12. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 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 transferred] 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 provisions of the Act under which the proceedings have been initiated. 14. 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 of the Act: “ Section 7(5D)(i) :- Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 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 Court 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. Section 15. Act to override other law :- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court or any other tribunal or authority. Section 17-B. Guidelines for interpretation of Act :- The Schedule shall constitute the guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of this Act.” 15. Further, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Act, Rules have been framed, viz., The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 , and Rule 13 thereof reads as under: “ 13. Section 17-B. Guidelines for interpretation of Act :- The Schedule shall constitute the guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of this Act.” 15. Further, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 16 of the Act, Rules have been framed, viz., The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 , and Rule 13 thereof reads as under: “ 13. Application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :- The Special Court shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying an application in respect of the following matters namely: (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) compelling the production f documents and material objects; (c) issuing Commission for examination of witnesses; (d) every enquiry or investigation by the Court shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).” 16. Firstly, a reading of Section 7(5D)(i)n of the Act would show that the said provision of the Act begins with a non-absentee clause i.e. ‘notwithstanding anything in the CPC” by itself does not mean or bar application of CPC in its entirety to the proceedings under the Special Act. It is only when a specific provision exists under the special enactment, the application of CPC would stand excluded. Even in such cases, where a specific 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 between the provisions under the Act and the CPC, the provision under the Special Act would prevail and not otherwise. 17. 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 between 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 Court 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 Duvvu 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 inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Of course, sub- section (5-D) of Section 7 of the act empowers the Special Court to follow its own procedure which shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code. But, this provision shall be read along with Section 9. A combined reading of the provisions of Section 7 (5-D) and Section 9 makes it clear that even though the provisions of Section 7 excludes the applicability of CPC to the proceedings under the Act, Section 9 is an exception to the said provision. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of the CPC are wholly not applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of the CPC are wholly not applicable to the proceedings initiated under the Act. Having gone through the entire Act and the Rules, we find no provision which is similar to the provisions of Order XX Rule 2 CPC, following which the Judgment was pronounced in the L.G.C., and therefore it cannot be said that the provisions of Order XX Rule 2 CPC are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Special Court, therefore, did no mistake in pronouncing the Judgment by following the provisions of the CPC.” 19. Having regard to the aforesaid decision of this Court and inasmuch as it is not shown to this Court that either under the Act or in the Rules exists under the Act which is inconsistent with Order VI Rule 17 CPC, thereby the Special Court required to consider the said provision and not application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, this Court is of the view that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the Special Court considering the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC either being contrary to the Act or the order suffering from any impropriety, cannot be held to be valid. 20. Further, though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the order of the Special Court is an unreasoned order and also that the said 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 opportunity 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. 21. The petitioners having failed to raise their objections by filing counter at the first instance, cannot be allowed to agitate the same before this Court in a Writ Petition, at a later point of time. 22. 21. The petitioners having failed to raise their objections by filing counter at the first instance, cannot be allowed to agitate the same before this Court in a Writ Petition, at a later point of time. 22. Though on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners having filed their counter to the underlying interlocutory application on 08.08.2018, however, it 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 petitioners 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 Special Court suffer from any infirmity for being interfered with by this Court in this Writ Petition. 24. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.