THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 16311 of 2010 Dated. 16–03-2011 Between: Vadla Laxmi Narayana and another …Petitioners Vs. R. Sai Reddy and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No. 16311 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR, J) This writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioners instituted O.S.No. 773 of 2007 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for a declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 07- 02-1989 and validated in File No. 6959/RR/2005 dated 19-11-2005 in the office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy; and the Sale deed document Nos. 12808/2005 dated 08-12-2005 and 6398/2006 dated 10-04-2006 registered at Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of agricultural lands in survey Nos. 26 and 27 (with sub-division 26/A & AA and 27/A & AA) of an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas situate at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are illegal, ineffective, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs (petitioners herein). The substratum of the pleas in O.S.No.773 of 2007 are that the 1st respondent in whose favour the petitioners had admittedly executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 09-03-1988 in respect of Ac.1-20 guntas out of Ac.5-02 guntas a total extent of land in survey Nos. 26/A, 26/B, 27/A and 27/B situate at Katedan village, Sivarampalli, Ranga Reddy District, had manipulated and created a General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the petitioners in respect of the whole extent of Ac.05-02 guntas and on the strength of such contrived General Power of Attorney executed sale deeds (referred to in O.S.No. 773 of 2007) in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioners had executed sale deeds in respect of the remaining extent of Ac.04-20 guntas (excluding the area of Ac.01-20 guntas in respect of which General Power of Attorney executed on 09-03-1988 in favour of 1st respondent), for different extents by different sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 13. Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 have filed L.G.C.No. 9 of 2010 against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 alleging grabbing of their lands and in respect of which they claim title on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the petitioners, as already stated. In the circumstances, the petitioners seek a Mandamus in this writ petition to withdraw O.S.No. 773 of 2007 from the file of learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District to the Special Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad, (for short ‘the 1982 Act’) to be tried along with L.G.C.No. 9 of 2010. Except pleading litigative convenience, the petitioners do not plead any legislative support for the relief sought in this writ petition either in the provisions of the 1982 Act or in the asserted plentitude of this Court’s jurisdiction within the limits of the Separation of Powers under the Constitution. It is axiomatic that the investiture of adjudicatory functions partakes a sovereign function and is to be performed by an Act of Legislature. While the Civil Courts are created and conferred jurisdiction under specific legislation including the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) with a generic jurisdiction to decide all civil disputes; by the provisions of the 1982 Act the State Legislature has excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts insofar as adjudication of land grabbing complaints is concerned and consecrated the adjudicatory function in respect of such disputes to the jurisdiction of Tribunals and Special Courts constituted under the provisions of the 1982 Act. The jurisdiction of the Tribunals and the Special Courts under the provisions of the 1982 Act is therefore a creature of the provisions of the 1982 Act and the limits of its jurisdiction is also enumerated in its provisions. It is outside the province and jurisdiction of this Court either to circumscribe or expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and Special Courts under the provisions of the 1982 Act, in any event and at any rate not because it is convenient for the petitioners that such consolidated adjudication should be done. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 16-03-2011 Pvks/*