Telangana High Court
Smt.Jyothi Porwal vs Smt.Chiluka Laxmi Bai on 28 May, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Writ Petition No.39600 of 2018
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
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.
2
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
3
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
M unicipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam v/ s. Sm t.B.Lalita Devi and
others 1 .
1
1995(2) ALT 84 (D.B.)
4
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 R ao and others v/ s. Special
Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Probation) Act, Hyderabad 2 ; and
New Jaji Labour Society, Vijayaw ada v/ s. Haji Abdul R aham an
Saheb and others 3 ; and the order in Vojjala Jayam m a v/ s. Vojjala
Pullaiah 4 .
12. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
2
1999 (2) ALD 92 (DB)
3
1992 (1) ALT 112 (DB)
4
CRP No.4790/2006 dt.02.08.2007
5
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. 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.
6
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. 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
7
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. 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
8inconsistent 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. 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
9
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. 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
10
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.
25. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light
of this final order. No order as to costs.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:28.05.2025
________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
GJ