THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.3817 OF 1996 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1995 passed by the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act; at Hyderabad in L.G.C.No.22/1993 in dismissing the case, the applicants before the Special Court, filed the preset writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners filed the land grabbing case under Section 8(1) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to declare the respondents as land grabbers, as they attempted to grab the petition – schedule property; to declare that the writ petitioners are the owners and possessors of the land bearing municipal Nos.9/564/A, 9/564/2A, 9/564/3 to 9/564/11 situate in Girmajipet in the limits of Warangal Municipality and to declare the documents bearing nos.741/93, 959/93, 1033/93, 1103/93, 1104/93 and 1105/93, which are the registered sale deeds and settlement deeds on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Wrangal, as void and inoperative against the writ petitioners and for costs. 4. The case of the writ petitioners before the Special Court is that Muthineni Ramaiah and Muthineni Kattamallaiah are the sons of Narsiah and they are the original owners of the petition schedule property i.e., premises bearing municipal nos.9/564/1A, 9/564/2A, 9/564/3 to 9/564/11 at Girmajipet, Warangal an the said municipal numbers had municipal no.1291 for the period from 1352 falsi to 1355 fasli and municipal no.972 from 1336 falsie to 1348 fasli. The name of Appani Venkataramanarsiah was noted by mistake in the Assessment Register for the premises bearing municipal no.9/564. Muthineni Kattamalaiah’s son Ramaswamy succeeded to his properties after the death of his father. Muthineni Ramaiah, one of the owners and his sons Ramachandraiah, Veeraiah and Lakshminarayana died. In the year 1968, rectification in the Assessment Register took place and in the place of Appani Venkatramnarsaiah, the names of Ramaswamy, s/o Kattamallaih, Jagadeshwar Rao, s/o Ramachandraiah, Manohar Rao and Vidyasagar Rao who are the sons of Veeriah and Sugunakar Rao who is the son of Lakshminarayana, were included as owners. In the petition, the petitioners have stated about the partition and the properties that fell to their shares. The mutation in the municipal assessment register in respect of the names of the petitioners 1 to 8 were effected as per the proceedings no.A10/7117/86 and accordingly they were paying property tax to the premises that fell to their respective shares in the partition. A portion of the premises bearing municipal no.9/564 was sold by Muthineni Sugnakar Rao, the father of petitioners 4 to 6 in favour of one K.Cheralu and Seelam Chandraiah. In column no.3 of the Assessment Register of the Warangal Municipality, the name of Appani Venkatramnarsaiah alone stood against the premises bearing municipal no.9/564. In the year 1992 on the application filed by the 1st respondent, the names of Shankaraiah, Pullaiah and Rajalingam were added after the name of Venkatramnarasaiah in a different ink and in a different handwriting. The said correction was made on the basis of the order of the DRO dated 3.7.1992 produced by the 1st respondent before the municipality, without notice to the petitioners in the LGC. Based on the said entry in the Municipal Assessment Register and the ownership certificate dated 18.2.1993 issued by Warangal Municipality, the 1st respondent as GPA holder of R-2 to R-4, R-9 to R-11, R-13 to R-16, R-18 to R-20, R-22 and late R-23, executed a sale deed bearing document no.741/93 dated 20.03.1993 in favour of R-25 in this LGC. The other respondents also executed sale deeds for different extents without any lawful entitlement after tempering the municipal assessment register in respect of the premises bearing municipal no.9/564 and hence the petitioners sought to declare them as land grabbers. Further alleging that the officials in the Municipality, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Special Officer, did not act as per the law, and hence they shall be declared as land grabbers. 5. The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter and stated that the petitioner schedule land is in Sy.No.54 of Girmajipet and the said land belongs to the joint family consisting of Appani Kistaiah alias Kistamma, Apani Venkaiah and Appani Jaggaiah. Appani Kistaiah was the manager of the joint family. Sons of Appani Kistaiah are Govindu, Narsaiah and Ramulyu. Govindu and Narsaiah died issueless. After describing the pedigree, the case of the 1st respondent is that land in question belongs to the Appani family. After coming to know about the wrong entries in the revenue records and in the municipal records, 1st respondent approached the M.R.O., Hanmakonda who informed through his memo dated 2.1.1992 about the wrong entries made in the revenue records. On the application of the 1st respondent, proceedings were initiated before the District Revenue Officer, Warangal under Section 166(B) of A.P.(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the District Revenue Officer after conducting enquiry, passed orders in Rc.No.B4/570/92 dated 30.7.1992 directing correction of the wrong entries and accordingly corrections were carried out and further as no appeals were filed, the order dated 30.7.1992 has become final. The mutation orders effected in pursuance of the proceedings no.A10/7117/86 referred to in the concise statement, was without notice to the respondents and even otherwise also the mutation proceedings are invalid, in view of the orders of the District Revenue Officer referred to above. The 8th petitioner participated in the enquiry before the D.R.O. who passed the order. It is stated that Muthineni Sugunakar Rao had no right to execute the sale deed and it does not confer any right on his vendees. O.S.No.150/93 was filed on the file of Sub-Court, warangal for partition and separate possession of the family properties and the present petition schedule property is included and the applicants 7 and 8 in this L.G.C. are defendants 20 and 21 in that suit. 6. R-2 to R-4, R-8 to R-11, R-12, R-17, R-21, R-24 to R-26, R-13 to R- 16, R-18 to R-20, R-22 and R-23 filed memos adopting the counters filed by the 1st respondent. 7. In the additional counter filed by R-2 to R-4 and R-8 to R-11, it is stated that there are no sub-division numbers to the premises bearing no.9/564 which is standing in the name of Appani Ramaiah, Appani Rajalingam and Appani Pullaiah as per the municipal records and the contention of the petitioners that the old corresponding numbers to the premises bearing municipal NO.9/564 are 1291 and 972, are not correct. The Special Officer, ULC, Warangal also issued an order under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act about the non-exercising of the first option by the Government which would also go to show that the premises bearing municipal no.9/564, is part and parcel of Sy.No.54 of Girmajipet village, which was never in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners at any point of time. The total extent of the premises bearing municipal no.9/564 which is in Sy.No.54 of Girmajipet is 3000 sq. yards and out of the said extent 1,000 sq. yards is under the control of the branch of Appani Venkatramanarsaiah. The other extents, which are under the control of different respondents, is stated in the counter. With these averments, the L.G.C. was sought to be dismissed. 8. After filing of the additional counter, the petitioners filed rejoinder stating that Appani Venkaiah s/o Pulliah, who is the great grand-father of respondents 2 to 4 and grand father of the respondents 8 to 11 has executed a registered sale deed bearing document no.187/17th dated Ardibehaz 1331 Fasli in which the northern boundary is shown as the land of Muthineni Katta Mallu in which Appani Rajalingam who is the father of respondents 8 to 11 and the son of the vendor under the said sale deed, have also attested. The property under the said sale deed was sold to one Akula Govindu and the same is in occupation of Akula Srinivasa Rao at present. Appani Pullaiah, the younger brother of Venkiah executed a sale deed in favour of one Papaiah and Appani Ramaiah in respect of a titled house in which the northern boundary is shown as the land of Muthineni Katta Mallu. Therefore, the petitioners sought to contend that the ancestors of respondents 2 to 4 and 8 and 11 have admitted the title of the ancestors of the petitioners. 9. Based on the above contentions, the Special Court initially framed following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioners are the owners of the petition – schedule property? 2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act? 4. To what relief? Additional issue: 1. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in this petition? 10. In support of the case of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 toA-103 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-24 were got marked. Exs.X-1 to X-7 are marked through P.Ws.3 to 4. 11. With regard to jurisdiction, the Special Court held that it has got jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. Further appreciating the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Special Court, on issue no.1 held that the petitioners failed to prove their title over the petition schedule site. With regard to second issue, the Special court held that the members of Appani family are the owners of the petitioner schedule property and accordingly answered the issue no.2 also in favour of the respondents. The Special Court held that the respondents are not the ‘land grabbers’ and accordingly dismissed the L.G.C. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants before the Tribunal filed the present writ petition. 12. Before proceedings to re-examine the evidence on record, it is pertinent to note Section 2(e)of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Act’). The same is extracted as under: “land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures and the term “to grab land” shall be constructed accordingly.” 13. From the above it is clear that in order to show that the respondents have committed the act of ‘land grabbing’, the petitioners shall prove that the respondents without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally take possession, entered into the land in question. A reading of the above section makes it cleat the mere ‘attempts’ to grab the land, cannot be termed as ‘land grabbing’. 14. From a perusal of the prayer in the concise statement filed in the L.G.C., it could be seen that the petitioners sought to declare the respondents as land grabbers, as they have attempted to grab the petitioner – schedule land. Therefore, the allegation is only ‘attempting’. From a perusal of the above definition, it could be seen that the act of ‘attempting’ is not sufficient for exercising the jurisdiction of the Special Court and the ingredients of the section have to be alleged and proved. Further from a perusal of the averments made in the concise statement filed by the petitioners, as noted in the earlier paragraphs, there is no averment with regard to taking possession of the land in question by respondents and the averments are mainly with regard to title. Unless the above ingredients of Section 2(e) of the Act are proved by showing that the respondents have entered into the land without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take illegal possession and further to do the acts enumerated in the section, they cannot be declared as land grabbers. As already noted above, the act of ‘attempting’ cannot be taken to declare the respondents as land grabbers. A Larger Bench of this court in the decision reported in HAE CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., HYD. v. SPECIAL COURT, ETC.[1] held that attempt to grab, does not amount to land grabbing as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and that the Special Court or Special Tribunal constituted thereunder do not have jurisdiction to entertain matters based on allegations of attempts to grab the land and that only in such matters where an applicant before the Court or Tribunal alleges that the land in question has been taken possession of by the respondents therein that they can exercise jurisdiction. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “81. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that an attempt to grab land cannot be treated as an act of land grabbing, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, and that the special Court or Special Tribunal constituted thereunder do not have jurisdiction to entertain matters based on the allegations of attempts to grab land. To be precise, it is only in such matters where an applicant before the Court or Tribunal alleges that the land in question has been taken possession of, by the respondent therein, that they can exercise jurisdiction.” 15. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Special Courts lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the writ petition is dismissed in limine. It is open for the parties to agitate their rights before appropriate forum. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.38 in the writ petition submitted that since the writ petition has been dismissed, he may he permitted to withdraw W.P.M.P.no.4770/2007 filed for recording of compromise. Permission accorded and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 29. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- T.MEENA KUMARI,J ------------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:5.3.2008 [1] 2004(6) ALD 769 (LB)