IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16192 of 2008 Between: State of A.P rep.by its Mandal Revenue Divisional Officer Golconda(M) Presently Asifnagar(M) Hyderabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Court Land Grabbing(prohibition) Act Boorgula Ramakrishna Building Hyderabad 2 Smt. Lalitha Devi W/o.B.Narasimha H.No.12-2-878/3/1 Asifnagar 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 rule nisi calling for the entire records leading upto and inclusive of the Judgment in LGC No.6 of 1996 on the ﬁle of the Special Court under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act Hyderabad dt.26-02-1997 and quash the Judgment made in LGC No.6 of 1996 of the 1st respondent herein by issuing an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.16192 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the judgment rendered in L.G.C.No.6 of 1996 dated 26-02-1997 on the file of Special Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Golconda Mandal, ﬁled an application under Section 8(1) of the said Act alleging that the second respondent herein had grabbed 385 square metres of land covered by T.S.No.2, Block-E, Ward 24 in Asifnagar village, Golconda Mandal, and constructed pucca house thereon. It was contended that the land is classiﬁed as Sarkari Poramboke and the second respondent is an encroacher and when a notice under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act was issued, she failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that it is not a Government land. The case of second respondent was that her husband had purchased Plot No.20 around Zeba Bagh admeasuring 473 square yards of land under registered sale deed dated 25-7-1960 from one Choutam Singh, who had purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 31-10-1955 from H.E.H. Nizam and the recital shows that it is the plot owned and possessed by the Nizam, and that her husband had constructed a house bearing No.12-2-874/3 and since then, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Tribunal after considering the oral evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-8 adduced on behalf of the State and Exs.B-1 to B-11 for the second respondent, held that the second respondent is not a land-grabber and she has got title to the property. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Assignment and perused the judgment impugned in the writ petition. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner herein does not disclose the nature of the occupancy, except in Ex.A-3 pahani, wherein it is mentioned that certain houses and huts are situated in the property. Ex.A-5 is the Gazette notiﬁcation published under Section 13 of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. The Tribunal has recorded the ﬁnding that there is no evidence to show that notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act, had been issued and this is fatal to the case of the petitioner, and the same is not disputed before us. Apart from this, the second respondent had traced the source of title and also got marked registered sale deed executed in the year 1960, by the vendor, who in turn had purchased the property from the Nizam. In fact, the husband of second respondent had obtained loan for construction of the house and he had also sought permission for making certain additional construction. Ex.B-9 is the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Ex.B-11 is the demand notice for payment of property tax. Exs.B-1 and B-2 show that the second respondent has clear title over the property in question and there is overwhelming evidence adduced by her to show that she is in possession of the property from 25-7-1960 onwards. Further, the second respondent has been in possession of the property for more than 30 years and thus she had acquired title by way of adverse possession. 5. Apart from the above, the impugned judgment was rendered on 26-2-1997 and the present writ petition is ﬁled in the year 2008 i.e. after the lapse of 11 years. Thus, there is inordinate delay in ﬁling the writ petition and it is also barred by laches. 6. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to dislodge the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal and the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 28-07-2008 bsc