WP/26239/2007 of Smt. Khaja Bee, Vs Smt. Khaja Bee, on 31 December 2007

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

&

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

WP No.26239OF 2007 31-12-2007Between:Khaha Bee & Others …… PetitionersANDKhaja Bee & Others ……… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

&

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

WP No.26239 OF 2007

ORDER:: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy )

This writ petition has been filed by the respondents 6, 8 to 10 inLGC No.17 of 1997 assailing the order dated 7-11-2007 passed in IANo.558 of 2007 & IA No.559 of 2007 in LGC No.17 of 1997 whereby andwhereunder, the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing(Prohibition ) Act, 1982,clarified the stage at which the petitionershereinare permitted to participate in proceedings.

2. Heard Sri Dr.Muddu Vijai, the learned counsel for the petitionersand Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.1who has filed caveat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitionersare entitled to participate in the proceedings placing on record additionalpleadings once the matter is remanded to Special Court for disposalafresh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1contended that the right of petitioners to file counter affidavit stoodforfeited by 24-2-1998 and unless the said order is set aside, thepetitioners cannot be permitted to put up additional pleadings.

4. We have gone through the order dated 6-11-2006 passed by this Court in WP No.25379 of 2004 allowing the writ petition setting asidejudgment dated 31-10-2003 passed in LGC No.17 of 1997 andremitting the matter to the Special Court for fresh consideration.

5. Subsequently, WPMP No.25098 of 2007 has been filed seekingclarification of the order dated 6-11-2006 passed by this Court in WPNo.25379 of 2004. The said WPMP came to be dismissed by this Courtby order dated 14-9-2007 with the observation which reads as under:

“As things stand, there is nothing which need beclarified. The order passed earlier speaks for itself. If anycontinuously (sic contingency) arises subsequent to thepassing of the order of this Court, it is for the Special Courtto adjudicate and decide.”

6. Taking clue from the above referred order, clarification has beensought from the Special Court by moving the applications being IANos.558 & 559 of 2007. The Special Court after considering the materialbrought on record permitted the petitioners to participate in theproceedings from the stage they put in their appearance i.e. from 12-7-2007. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:

“xiv) Under the above facts and circumstances andthe law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, R-6, 8 to 10, who were set ex-parte twice by this Court on 17-9-1998 for their failure to file counters in the above LGC arepermitted to participate in subsequent proceedings from thestage at which they put in their appearance i.e. from 12-7-2007 and they cannot be permitted to file their counters inthe main LGC and recall witnesses examined earlier and forcross-examination of those witnesses. The abovementioned operative portion of this order is the clarificationissued and passed by this Court.”

7. The above said order passed in IA Nos.558 & 559 of 2007 ischallenged in this writ petition.

8. We have gone through the certified copy of the proceeding sheet in LGC No.17 of 1997 made available to us. The right of the petitioners-respondents 6, 8 to 10 to file counters came to be forfeited on 24-2-1998. The relevant portion of the order passed on 24-2-1998 is as under:

“LGC No.17 of 1997: Sri M. Papareddy, counselappearing for R-3 & 4 is absent. No counter is filed. Sri MAMujeeb, counsel appearing for R-6, 8 to 10 is also absent.No counter is filed by him. There is no representation onbehalf of both the counsel. The right to file counters for R-3,4, 6, 8 to 10 is forfeited. Posted to 3-3-1998 for issues.Meanwhile objections, if any by GP under Rule 8. Counselfor R-1 & 2 is present.”

9. It is explicit that the right of the petitioners who are respondents6, 8 to 10 came to be forfeited as on 24-2-1998. Unless the said orderdated 24-2-1998 is set aside, the question of petitioners herein who arerespondents 6, 8 to 10 in LGC No.17 of 1997 to put on record additionalpleadings does not arise. Therefore, we do no see any substance in thewrit petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

______________________

Ghulam Mohammed, J

_______________________

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J