ORDER
Lingaraja Rath, J.
1. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is applicability of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, more particularly that of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to the proceedings before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition Act) 1982 (Act 12 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. The facts in nut-shell are that the appellant approached the Special Court under the Act complaining land grabbing by 21 personsof a patch of land to the extent of Ac.7-22 cents in the city of Vishakapatnam. The case pleaded before the Special Court was that the land originally belonged to 21 respondents, respondents 30 to 50 herein, but that it was acquired under the Land Acquisition 30 Act, 1894, in the year 1956. In the land acquisition case, the award was duly passed and compensation was paid. Subsequently, respondents 30 to 50 applied for lay outs of the land and paid betterment charges. But the Municipality having found the land being acquired by itself filed the Land Grabbing Case 99 of 1989. The case is being contested by respondents 30 to 50 35 before the Special Court contending no acquisition to have been made of the land and possession not to have been ever taken over. After the case was enquired into and was reserved for judgment, applications were filed by 28 alienees from respondents 30 to 50, who are respondents 1 to 28 before us, seeking directions under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings on the plea that they had purchased the land in the year 1987 and 1988 from the respondents 30 to 50 and had applied for lay-outs which had been sanctioned and had paid betterment charges for which they had interest in the land and hence should be heard before the Land Grabbing Case is decided. It was their further case that the purchases by them were throughout known to the appellants but yet they were not made parties to the Land Grabbing Case and that the Municipality having sanctioned the lay-out and having accepted the betterment charges, is estopped from questioning their interest in the land. The Tribunal having considered the application passed orders on 22nd September, 1992, as follows:
“Application is filed on 14-9-1992 for bringing the persons, who purchased the land from the respondents, on record. At this stage, we cannot permit them for impleading and for filing written statements, taking advantage of the fact that the matter is now reopened for limited purpose of hearing the respondents’ Counsel after the judgment was reserved on 28-7-1992. As the proposed parties claim through the respondents, their presence is not necessary for adjudicating the questions raised. Application is dismissed.”
3. Assailing that order, respondents 1 to 28 came before this Court in W.P. No. 12752 of 1992 which was allowed and direction was issued to the Special Court to implead them as respondents to the Land Grabbing Case, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 15
4. In deciding the case, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was aware of the names of the respondents 1 to 28 when the Land Grabbing Case was filed and that they should have treated such respondents as persons interested in the land and should have imp leaded them as respondents in the Land Grabbing Case. The learned Judge also concluded of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C being applicable to the proceedings for which respondents 1 to 28 were entitled to claim to be impleaded as parties to tine case. While coming to such questions, a finding was also arrived at that the Special Court did not fail in its duty is not giving notices to the respondents 1 to 28 in Form III-A as there was no material before the Special Court to show that they were persons interested 25 in the land in question.
5. As regards the applicability of provisions of C.P.C. to the enactment in question, we have been taken through the different provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions are Sections 5-B (sic. 7(5-D)(i)), 9,15 and 17-B of the Act of which all the provisions, except Section 15, were brought in or were amended by Act 16 of 1987. While Section 9 provides the provisions of C.P.C. and Cr.P.C. to be applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and also that the Special Court shall, for the purpose of the said enactments, would be deemed to be a Civil Court or as the case may be a Court of Sessions, yet in Section 5-B (sic. 7(5-D)(i)) 35 a provision is made that notwithstanding any tiling contained in the C.P.C. 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 other provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. Section 15 makes the overriding provision of the Act to be operative notwithstanding anything inconsistent in the provisions of the Act to any other law, custom, usage, agreement or decree of a Court or a Tribunal or any other authority for the time being in force. Section 17 mandates that the schedule to the Act shall constitute guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of the Act. Section 5-B opens with the non-obstante clause and hence has overriding affect over the 45 other provisions of tine Act. Thus, though Section 9 provides the provisions of C.P.C. to be applicable and the Special Court to be a Civil Court for the purpose, yet such provision would apply only if it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and that too subject to the power of the Special Court to evolve its own procedure in deciding the matters with the only condition that such procedure evolved shall not be inconsistent with the principles of natural Justice and fair play. To make matters more clear Section 17-B has been added that the provisions of the Act be interpreted in accordance with the guidelines in the Schedule. Clause 4 of the Schedule inter alia says that the Special Court, because of the very nature of its composition, is empowered to regulate its proceedings by evolving its own procedure not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder. It is further said: “As the Special Court has to follow its own procedure consistent with principles of natural justice and fair play, the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not made applicable to it”. In clause 6 of the Schedule, it is further stated: “As it was decided to confer wide jurisdiction on the Special Court to try and determine in the same proceedings, civil and criminal liability, it became necessary to incorporate the non-obstante clause to the effect that not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972, the Special Court shall have the aforesaid jurisdiction.” Reading such provisions, it is clear that the special Court has to follow, in deciding cases before it, the principles of natural justice and fair play and that for that purpose it may apply the provisions of the C.P.C. but that it is not bound to follow the rigours of it. The provisions of C.P.C. become applicable and would be applied at the discretion of the Special Court only as embodied principles of natural justice and fair play. Once such view is arrived at, it becomes clear that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are not ipso facto applicable to the proceedings of the Special Court though such principles may be adopted by the Special Court as principles of natural justice. The distinction is that while there is no inherent right in a person to claim to be impleaded as being the necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, yet he may undoubtedly come before the Court claiming such benefit as being the requirement of the principles of natural justice and fair play in the circumstances of the case.
6. Section 8(6) first proviso of the Act requires the Special Court to notify the fact of taking congnizance of the case and state the period during which any objection in the case may be received by it. The rule relatable to the provision is Rule 7(1) which requires a notice to be given in Form II-A. In the Form the provision is that if any person intends to object, he may submit his objection before the Special Court on or before the date specified in the notice. The notice was given by the Special Court on 2nd August, 1989 fixing 28th day of August, 1989 as the date by which tine objections were to be filed. The notice was published in the A.P. Gazette as is the requirement under Rule 7(1). Itz is the conceded case of respondents 1 to 28 that no objections had been filed by them in pursuance of the notice. In the affidavit filed by them supporting their case under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., even no averment was made of the notice being not to their knowledge. As it is, publication of the notice in the Gazette would be ipsofacto notice to all persons interested including the respondents. But even apart from that the respondents themselves also never claimed not to have known of the proceedings before the Special Court. Thus the principles of natural justice involved in the case would seem to have been satisfied by the Special Court calling upon all persons, interested, which obviously include the respondents, also to file their objections. The respondents have never given any explanation as to why such opportunity was not availed by them. The endeavour of the respondents throughout has been to pursue their cause as a right available to them under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. only. It hence cannot be said that there has been any failure of natural justice so far as the respondents 1 to 28 are concerned.
7. The other ground on which learned Special Court refused the plea of the respondents was that they are claimants only through the owners of the land, i.e., respondents 30 to 50, and hence their presence is not necessary for adjudication of the questions raised. The question whether the land was acquired in 1956 or not is a question to be decided between the respondents to 50, the Municipal Corporation as also the Government. Respondents 1 to 28 claiming title through respondents 30 to 50 have no right or independant claim to contest the case of the appellant in that regard. We are also not satisfied that respondents 30 to 50 are not contesting the case jealously, as the claim of respondents 1 to 28 is only regarding 10,000 sq. yds. whereas the entire land is Acs.7-22, for which the contest is going on. On the other hand the apprehension of the appellants is that if the respondents 1 to 28 are permitted at this stage to come in, it may open up avenues for other similar claimants in respect of the balance portion of the land since it would be found to be advantageous to begin contesting the case on such ground and that would necessarily hold up the adjudication by the Special Court indefinitely. For such reasons, we are also not satisfied that there is any lack of fair play in refusing admittance of respondents 1 to 28 as parties to the proceedings.
8. In the result we do not find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is sustainable, and hence set aside the same and restore the order passed by respondent No. 29, the Special Court. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.