In this writ petition filed by a petitioner implicated in a land grabbing case (LGC), the High Court refused to direct the Special Court to expedite the disposal of a pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding it improper to issue such a direction at this stage.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.4743 OF 2012
March 02, 2012
Between:
Habeeb Mohammed
... Petitioner
And
Smt.Aruna Sri M Reddy And others
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.4743 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner is the third respondent in LGC No.12 of 2009 before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act). The said LGC was filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner and six others alleging the offence of grabbing of land to the extent of 2000 Sq.yards in old S.No.19/2 (revised S.Nos.22 and 24) situated at Kavadiguda village of Himayath Nagar Mandal in Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that LGC was filed making all false allegations and contrary to the revenue records and other evidence. Be that as it is, LGC is pending since 2008. The petitioner filed I.A.No.444 of 2011 under Section 8(2) of the Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Special Court to reject the complaint in the LGC. The first respondent filed counter affidavit opposing the application. The said application is pending. The petitioner alleges that he filed Memo (SR) No.415 of 2012 praying the Special Court to dispose of the I.A. expeditiously in vain. Therefore he filed the instant writ petition.
There is no dispute that the Special Court has taken cognizance of LGC and all the parties in all probability filed their pleadings. Unless and until the LGC is finally decided, at this stage it is doubtful whether the petitioner could have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Be that as it is, as
the relief sought in this writ petition is limited to a direction to the Special Court to dispose of I.A.No.444 of 2011 we deem it improper to give such a direction. If so advised, the petitioner may pursue the remedy with the Special Court for expeditious disposal of the main case itself.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
March 02, 2012 YS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Special Court could be directed to expeditiously dispose of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where the main case is pending and facts remain disputed.
Habeeb Mohammed
Aruna Sri M Reddy And others
V.V.S.RAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
