IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13947 of 2005 Between: K. Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o. K. Suryanarayana, Hindu, R/o. 1-1-336/10, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Court-I constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2 Mrs. Shajahan Begum, W/o. Ameer Ali, R/o.H.No. 17-9-178/B, Kurmaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or order or direction by setting aside the portion of the judgement in L.G.A. 25/2003 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act dt. 26-4-2004 wherein the order of the Special Tribunal cum Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, was set aside to the finding relating to payment of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- as well as Rs. 1,50,000/- towards profits that were awarded to the writ petitioner herein in L.G.O.P.No. 919/93 dt. 9-6-2003 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.13947 of 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26-4-2004 passed in L.G.A.No.25 of 2003 on the file of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, to the extent setting aside the order of the Special Tribunal in regard to payment of compensation. 2 . The Special Court, after considering the rival contentions and examining the record, held that there was no right to claim compensation as the petitioner herein was in wrongful possession and thus, the finding of the Special Tribunal with regard to point No.4 in respect of payment of compensation, was set aside. When the Special Court after appreciation of evidence has recorded the finding that there was no evidence that the petitioner was in lawful possession, the question of granting compensation does not arise. Having regard to the categorical finding of the Special Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the said finding. 3. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 06-08-2008 bsc